• ' r 
 
 > 
 
 ■J N O 
 
 .0"^ ^ ^ * ° / 
 
 
 
 ■"^A V^ 
 
 
 
 ^^^^ 
 
 \.'^^vj^;- 
 
 ..^^' 
 .^^ 
 
 ,<^ 
 
 
 'K^ t- * -fix ' 
 A'^ C » '^ ^ « ^O^ " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vO 
 
 
 i^ -^^ 
 
 
 ■%c,V 
 
 /h' 
 
 ^,<^' ^^ 
 

 
 .0' o ^ ' ° * ^ 
 
 
 ,o' 
 
 
 
 
Mmw si % Wnk)i ^hiu 
 
 TO ITS 
 
 OIlIGi:t^A.L PURITY, 
 
 9 ' - ^m 
 
 AND AN EXPLANATION OF THE KUnOtt:;! WinOII BROUOItT AttOUT DE- uitN^ 
 STifUCTfON 01 lAVF., LIBERTY AND PUOPERTY, AND TIIR 
 
 BEMEBY THEB3EF0E 
 
 ^ BY SAMUEL JOUDAN, 
 
 iDP ABBEVILLR DISTRICT, SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 AUGUSTA, GEOBG lA 
 
 1800. 
 
 

 ■»,r'?^0"''''.'ix ^ 
 
 
THE RESTOREK 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Mmw si % M\nU)i States 
 
 TO ITS 
 
 OEIGII^^^L PURITY, 
 
 AND AN EXPLANATION OF THE ERRORS WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT DE- 
 STRUCTION OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, AND THE 
 
 (T^ RE M E B Y THEREFOR. 
 
 BY SAMUEL JORDAN, 
 
 OF ABBEVILLE DISTRICT, SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 
 
 1866. 
 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 :o:- 
 
 The object of this work is intended to correct the errors of 
 this age in regard to their poHtical opinions, both South and 
 North, and to arrest this cruel and unnatural war, and the de- 
 struction of life, liberty and property of all engaged in it, 
 North and South. I wish, if possible, to send every soldier, 
 North and South, back to their firesides and families, their sweet- 
 hearts and homes ; to enjoy that happiness which none of us 
 did know, until we were deprived of it. Those who have 
 wives and little children depending on them alone, for support 
 and protection, must suffer most. Forced from them, and 
 dragged into marshes and swamps to die with disease or sick- 
 ness, or dragged in line of battle to be shot down by people 
 who have no desire to hurt them, but who are forced by their 
 officers to shoot them, or be shot by them. Each man is com- 
 pelled to kill, or be killed, by some one. This is the deplorable 
 condition in which the people, North and South, are placed by 
 their political leadei'S. Now, if God will enable me, I will show 
 to the people their true situation, and enable them to escape 
 the awful destruction that lies before them, (for the worst has 
 not come yet,) and restore them back under the government of 
 their fathers in its purity, contained in the Constitution of the 
 United States, which Lincoln and his party, and Davis and his 
 party, have deserted, Tliis I will show by the princif)les they 
 both have acted under, a principle called " separate State sove- 
 reignty;" which principles, when examined, will be found to 
 destroy every right and liberty secured to the people of the 
 United States, by the provisions contained in the Constitution 
 of the United States, and would, by this (so-called) " State sove- 
 reignty," and the principles embodied and established by their 
 
conventions, show fully what the object of the Lmcoln party 
 and the Davis party is. 
 
 I do not draw my opinions from what the papers report, for 
 they are only used as an instrument to deceive the people. But 
 I draw my opinions from the principles adopted by our South- 
 ern Conventions. First, in 1832, imder the plea of tariff op- 
 pression ; second, in Cincinnati, under the plea of the great 
 dangers of "Abolition majorities," pretending that their object 
 was to protect the South against the Abolitionists; also, third, 
 Conventions were called by those who called themselves Dem- 
 ocrats, South and North, professing the same object; fourth, 
 Convention by South Carolina to dissolve the Union, and sepa- 
 rate themselves and all others in the State of South Carolina 
 from their own government, whether the people are willing or 
 not. They had deluded and deceived the people, making them 
 believe that their object was to protect them against the Aboli- 
 tionists of the North, and destroy the people's government and 
 establish this (so-called) separate " State sovereignty," and called 
 on the people to volunteer and organize themselves under mili- 
 tary organizations, so as to be able to protect their homes, their 
 firesides and families, against the abolition raiders of the North. 
 But the people soon found they had to protect soinething else 
 than their families and firesides. They did not know that, when 
 those men, at the head of the army had physical numbers, they 
 could force them into the army. Now, by what they call 
 " Conscript law," they have dragged every man from his home, 
 family and fireside, to support and defend State Rights Seces- 
 sion ; and hence Ave are engaged in one of the most cruel and 
 unnatural wars of ancient or modern times. Now, I think I 
 can show that the principles contended for, both by Lincoln 
 and his party, and Davis and his party, are precisely the same. 
 If either of the two parties establishnhemselves under military 
 power, the people will be under the grandest military power on 
 the face of the globe, not excepting the African chief who kills 
 . whom he pleases, and eats whom he pleases, takes from whom 
 he pleases, and gives to whom he pleases. 
 
 Davis and his party and Lincoln and his party both contend 
 for State Rights sovereignty, the only difference being this : 
 
Lincoln's party contends that by acts of States Rights sove- 
 reignty, each State has the right, by acts of legislature, and acts 
 of majorities, to emancipate the African property; while 
 Davis and his party claim, by acts of legislature, and of ma- 
 jorities, the right to emancipate the life, liberty and all the 
 property from the people, as the legislative bodies are under 
 no obligation, only their own will, like any king, prince or 
 potentate. But this I will show more fully, when I explain 
 the true, genuine provisions provided by, and for the protec- 
 tion and security of life, liberty and properti/ to each member of 
 the Union. And, at the same time, I will show that, under 
 the provisions of the (so-called) " States Rights sovereignty" 
 doctrine, the people have no security for either life, liberty or 
 property, and that it destroys every right to liberty or property 
 and places them at the will and mercy of legislation and 
 acts of majorities : whereas, the object of the framers of the Con- 
 stitution was, to make and provide provisions in the Constitu- 
 tions to protect the people in all their rights, against any 
 acts of legislation, or acts of majorities, either by States or by 
 Congress. This, I will attempt to show first ; then show the 
 principles couched under the name of States Rights sovereignty. 
 
fflje ^^tstorer of tl}e Siiion. 
 
 -:o:- 
 
 There is one error existing among the people which I wish to 
 correct at the commencement of my showing. It is thought by 
 a great many that the word Constitution embraces only the third 
 addition, or what really is an amendment to the two first en- 
 gagements contained in the Declaration of Independence and 
 the Articles of Confederation ; but the word Constitution em- 
 braces all three of these documents, and it requires the pro- 
 visions of all three to make a perfect Union. As proof of what 
 I say, the provision called the Constitution, provides that all 
 engagements entered into before the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion, should be as binding against the United States as imder 
 the Confederation. This shows that the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence was still binding ; as also were the Articles of Con- 
 federation, and that the word Constitution embraces all three 
 of those agreements entered into. The Articles of Confedera- 
 tion begin thus : The style of this Confederation shall be the 
 " United States of America." As there has been some miscon- 
 struction put on the word State^ when the people declared their 
 independence against the government of England, it will, per- 
 haps, be proper to make some explanation. What are now 
 called States, were then called colonies, and governed by the 
 laws of England. The word colony then, merely embraced a 
 boundary of territory, which was set apart to certain Lords 
 and Governors to colonize, and settle with Protestant citizens; 
 with a promise on the part of the king to give a certain quan- 
 tity of land, according to the nimiber of citizens. They settled 
 in the boundaries set apart by the territory, called Colonies, but 
 by us called States. These two words had merely reference 
 to the boundary or territory. But when we united as one 
 people, and formed one " National Union," the word State was 
 
used, in order to include all the people within the territorial 
 boundaries of the States. The word State had no reference to 
 any political power, other than that of the people; and all 
 agents were created by the people. Nor had they any au- 
 thority in creating and adopting the Constitution of the United 
 States as a. standard of government until the people of every 
 State gave their consent, by and through their delegates, sent 
 by them to approve or disapprove. Neither were they bound, 
 until they gave their consent, after they had examined the prin- 
 ciples adopted by their delegates. But they all did consent, 
 and bound themselves together as a national body, (as far as the 
 United States boundaries were concerned,) under the following 
 agreement : First, under the " Declaration of Independence." 
 There we pledged oiir lives, our fortunes, and sacred honor to 
 sustain each other in the rights of independence, which was a right 
 to create the laws by which we were to be governed, instead 
 of having them made by kings and monarchs. We succeeded 
 in gaining our independence, and then renewed our engage- 
 ments tinder the Articles of Confederation. Then we entered 
 into a firm league of friendship with each other to support and 
 defend each other against all attacks made against us, or any of 
 us, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pre- 
 tence whatever, which covered everything which could be 
 thought of or named. We then went on further to describe 
 the conditions of the Union. 
 
 Art. 4th. " The better to secure and perpetuate mutual 
 friendship and intercourse amongst the people of the different 
 States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States 
 (paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted,) shall 
 be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in 
 the several States ; and the people of each State shall have free 
 ingress and egress, to and from any other State, and shall enjoy 
 therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the 
 same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants re- 
 spectively ; provided, that such restrictions shall not extend so 
 far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any 
 State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant ' 
 provided, also, that no imposition duties or restrictions shall be 
 
laid by any State on the property of the United States or either 
 of them." This shows clearly that every member of the United 
 States, North and South, had the right secured to him to move 
 into any State or Territory in the United States, take his pro- 
 perty with him, and that no imposition duties or restrictions 
 should be passed by any State to prevent him. And as no 
 State has any power to pass an ex pod facto law^ or law imparing 
 obligations of contracts, this provision would prevent a State 
 from passing a law to take any right from a citizen or impair 
 the contract that secured those rights. This shows clearly that 
 every citizen of the United States has the right to buy any 
 property, move into any State with it, and a right to be pro- 
 tected in it. For, both the Articles of the Confederation and 
 the Constitution of the United States provides, that the citizens 
 of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
 ties of the citizens in the several States. So that, if a citizen 
 in one State has the right to buy slave property, so has the citi- 
 zens of every other State to buy slave property ; and no State 
 has the right by acts of legislation or by acts of majorities, to 
 prevent him. For the provision in the Constitution of the 
 United States has prohibited all States from passing ex post facto 
 laws, or laws imparing the obligation of contracts. The Con- 
 stitution of the United States is all the obligation of contracts 
 that exists among the people of the United States, and is es- 
 tablished the supreme law of the land; and every one in office 
 throughout the United States, is bound by oath or obligation 
 to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, 
 notwithstanding any constitution or law in any State to the 
 contrary. This shows that no State has the power to make a 
 constitution to prevent the citizens of any State from moving 
 his slave property, or any other property, nor prevent his buy- 
 ing slave property. For, if they do, it will be passing an ex 
 post f ado law, and imparing the obligations of contracts. There 
 is another provision in the Constitution which provides that 
 "No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws 
 thereof, escaping into another State, shall, in consequence of any 
 law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or 
 labor, but shall be delivered up, upon the claim of the party 
 to whom such service or labor is due." Now, it will be seen, 
 
10 
 
 that by this provision of the Constitution, no law nor regula- 
 tion can be made by a State to discharge a servant or person 
 bound to service to a citizen of another State. But if a servant 
 or person bound to service escapes into another State, they are 
 bound to deliver up such servant. Neither has a State any 
 power to make any law or regulation to discharge a servant or 
 person bound to service to a citizen of their own State. For 
 the Constitution provides that the citizens shall be secure in their 
 persons, papers, houses and effects ; and that security shall be 
 inviolably preserved. If a State was to pass a law to dispossess 
 a citizen of his slave property, or any other property, right or 
 liberty, secured by any provision contained in the Constitution, 
 it would be passing an ex post fact-o law, and a law imparing the 
 obligation of contracts. Those are the great and important 
 chech to prevent acts of legislation and acts of majorities from 
 disj^ossessing themselves of all the rights, liberties and privi- 
 leges secured to themselves by the provisions of the Constitu- 
 tion ; making their own authority under the Constitution a wall 
 which no act of legislation or act of majorities can pass over, 
 and in this way make themselves secure in every right, liberty 
 and privilege guaranteed in the provision of the Constitution. 
 Now, as we have seen by the provisions of the Constitution, 
 that it has secured the people against all acts of legislation and 
 acts of majorities by those important checks, let us see how 
 Congress stands in regard to their power, which the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States provides. (For it seems that the se- 
 curity of the African property has been better secured, or as 
 well as any other.) The Constitution provides that, " The 
 powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution? 
 nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
 respectively, or the people." This shows clearly that Congress 
 has no power but what is exj^ressly named and set ajiart for 
 them. A State has no power to do that which Congress has 
 not the power to do ; therefore Congress and the States are 
 prohibited from passing ex pod facto laws. This prohibits both 
 legislatures and majorities from passing any law to deprive a 
 citizen of any right already established. And as the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States is the supreme law of the land, all 
 
11 
 
 officers are bound by oath, or affirmation, to support and defend 
 the Constitution of the United States, notwithstanding any 
 constitution or law in any State to the contrary. This oath 
 shows that it is not a union of State authorities, but a union of 
 the people ; for no officer in any State is bound to support and 
 defend the constitution of any other State, except his own ; but 
 by his oath is bound to disregard the constitution of his own 
 and every other State, unless it agrees with the Constitution of 
 the United States. I may be asked where I place the right of 
 sovereignty ? I place the right of sovereignty in the people. 
 All kings and monarchs who claim the right of sovereignty, 
 claim the right to make the laws — they being sovereign, the 
 laws they make are sovereign. 
 
 They also declare that they shall be the supreme law of the 
 land, and by these laws they control all within the territorial 
 jurisdiction. So we, the people, being sovereigns, created by 
 our authority the Constitution of the United States, and de- 
 clared that it should be the supreme law of the land ; and we, 
 being sovereign, the laws Avhich we created were sovereign 
 also. We all, throughout the United States, agreed to be gov- 
 erned by these laws, and to govern all others by these laws. 
 And in this way we are governed by a written agreement of 
 principles, and not by acts of legislation and acts of majorities. 
 This is a government created by the Constitution — a pure De- 
 mocracij. It is not a majority governing a minority, for that 
 would be one party governing another party, and the party 
 governed would have no voice in making the laws by which 
 they were to be governed. But the government created by 
 the Constitution of the United States, (as I have shown,) draws 
 up a written agreement by which all agree to be governed, 
 and to govern all others. We have not agreed to be gov- 
 erned by acts of legislation nor acts of majorities, but by 
 the laws we have created ourselves. And in these laws we 
 have prohibited all acts of legislation and acts of majorities, 
 from taking the value of a pin from us either by Congress or 
 by States. So that every citizen, who is a member of this 
 Union, has the same right that any citizen of any other State 
 has. If a citizen of any State has the right to buy African pro- 
 
12 
 
 perty, so have the citizens of every other State the same right. 
 For the Constitution of the United States and the Articles of 
 Confederation, both provide that the citizens of each State shall 
 be entitled to all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the 
 citizens in the several States. 
 
 Now, mind, the word is not " the citizens of the several States, 
 but in the several States. So that whatever rights a citizen has 
 in any State, the citizens of every other State have the same 
 rights. The State has no power to prevent him, for it would 
 be passing an ex post facto laio and a law imparing the obligation 
 of contracts. There is no authority for one State restricting 
 the people of any other State from buying African property, or 
 any other property. Every citizen of the United States has the 
 right to decide for himself what he will buy or not buy ; and no 
 acts of legislation either of Congress or State has power to jirc- 
 vent him. It would be no Union if it were otherwise ; for the 
 word union means one, not tico ; but one united agreement, ex- 
 tending to all the members of this Union. The Constitution 
 of the United States gives no power to acts of majorities out- 
 side of the Constitution. It has secured to the people the right 
 to elect all officers by acts of majorities; but the officers elect- 
 ed have no power outside of that written agreement of princi- 
 ples. Those principles, established in the Constitution, rule and 
 govern all officers and citizens, both of States and the United 
 States. You will perhaps ask the question, is there not power in 
 Congress, when the President vetoes the acts of Congress, and 
 cannot Congress, by a majority of two-thirds, establish the act 
 vetoed, as a law ? I say no ; unless it is in accordance with the 
 provisions of the Constitution. This act of majorities only 
 overrules the veto of the President. But, if this law, passed 
 by two-thirds, ovevi'rule the veto of the President, the Constitu- 
 tion has provided a cheek against acts of majorities by provid- 
 ing that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to 
 all cases of law and equity, arising under this Constitution, in 
 all cases wherein the United States shall be a jjarty. Now, in 
 this case, the United States is a party, and if any one objects to 
 such a law, as being unconstitutional, they have the right to 
 bring the case into that court, and pronounce such a law uncon- 
 
13 
 
 stitutional, mill and void, and no law. You will say : does this 
 make the Judges sovereigns ? I say no ; for the Judges are 
 only agents of the people, and appointed by the people .as a 
 check against illegal legislation. Legislators may err as well as 
 others. He is a very wise man that never errs, and a very good 
 man that never does Avrong. So it was necessary that a court 
 should be appointed to decide on the acts of legislators. 
 
 As there has been so much pains taken by the framers of the 
 Constitution to prohibit and restrict them Avithin the bounds of 
 the Constitution, and as the> object of all government is, and 
 ought to he, to appoint courts and juries, to protect right against 
 wrong, so the people appointed this court as a protector of their 
 rights, liberties and privileges secured to themselves in the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, against all acts of legislation and 
 acts of majorities, passed by our agents, binding them at the 
 same time by oath to suj^port and defend the Constitution of 
 the United States. So they cannot be called sovereigns, but 
 agents. They are not left to exercise their own will, but are 
 bound by oath to decide according to the constitutionality of 
 the case. This shows clearly that there are no sovereigns but 
 the people, and the laws established by them in the Constitution 
 of the United States, and such as will accord with them. 
 
 I may be asked the question, does not the Constitution of the 
 United States give power, to a majority of three-fourths to 
 amend the Constitution? It does; but the word amend does 
 not mean to destroy or make weaker, but to strengthen, and make 
 stronger. 
 
 All the provisions of the Constitution were created for the 
 protection of the people in their rights. 
 
 Any amendment that would protect them better and make 
 them more secure in their rights would be in accordance with 
 all the other provisions of the Constitution, and would be a 
 constitutional amendment. But any law passed under the name 
 of an amendment, which would destroy, or take away any right, 
 liberty or privilege, already secured by the provisions of the 
 Constitution of the United States, would be an ex post facto law ; 
 and would be imparing the obligation of contracts, therefore, 
 null and void ; and would be pronounced so by all wise, honest 
 
14 
 
 and intelligent courts, if the case was properly argued before 
 them. So this shows still that majorities have no power otit- 
 side of the Constitution. Those provisions of the Constitiition 
 of the United States show, beyond the doubt of contradiction, 
 that no power is given to any officer or agent, acting in the 
 United States, outside of the Constitution of the United States, 
 and that this Union is to be pei'petual, and cannot be legally 
 destroyed. The next question is — how are new States to be 
 admitted into the Union ? The Constitution provides that new 
 States may be admitted into the Union by Congress. This pro- 
 vision of the Constitution must have reference to coming out 
 of other governments into this Union, such as Texas, Louisiana, 
 and Florida ; for all territories belonging to the United States 
 are already in the Union. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States provides that Con- 
 gress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful 
 rules and regiilations, respecting the territories and other public 
 property belonging to the United States. Now, Congress has 
 made regulations in regard to States being admitted into the 
 Union, coming out of a territory — " That a certain number 
 named, settling in a territory, shall be admitted by Congress as 
 a State." All that a territory has to do, is to give Congress sat- 
 isfactory proof that they have the number of citizens in that 
 territory, required by law, and that gives them the right to be 
 admitted. But Congress has no power to fix the terras by 
 which they shall be admitted — except the numbers. The Con- 
 stitution has fixed the terms upon which all States shall come 
 into the Union. That is, every one in office throughout the 
 United States shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, that they 
 will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. 
 So that every State has to come into the Union under the same 
 agreement as the rest. There is but one way for a State to 
 come into this Union, and that is, to bind themselves to support 
 and defend all the provisions of the Constitution of the United 
 States, which has secured to every citizen, who is a member of 
 the United States, a right to go into any State, and take with 
 him his property. And all States are prohibited from making 
 any law of impositions or duties on his property, and he is se- 
 
15 
 
 cure in the right of carrying his property, to and from any 
 State, and the right to buy and own any property he chooses ; 
 and no State has the power to impair the contract which secures 
 him in that right. For the Constitution provides '' that the citi- 
 zens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and im- 
 munities of the citizens in the several States." Not of but in 
 the several States. So that whatever right a citizen has in any 
 State, the citizens of every other State has the same. There is 
 no such thing as a State having power by acts of majorities or by 
 legislation^ or by forming a constittdion, to jirevent any citizen of 
 the United States from buying what he pleases ; and he has a 
 right to be protected in every State and Territory in the United 
 States, and as far as the flag of the United States sails. Now, 
 this is the kind of government created by the Constitution of 
 the United States ; all men in oflice are bound to support and 
 defend it throughout the United States.. 
 
 Now, it will be seen how necessary it is for the constitution 
 of every State to accord with the provisions of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, for every ofiicer of any and every 
 State has to take an oath to sujiport and defend the constitution 
 of his own State, as well as the Constitution of the United 
 States. If the constitution of his own State is in opposition to 
 the pro\dsions of the Constitution of the United States, he can- 
 not support two opposites, and must therefore perjure himself. 
 For the oath provided by the Constitution of the United States 
 is, that every ofiicer throughout the United States should be 
 bound by oath, or afiirmation, to support and defend the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, notwithstanding any constitution or 
 law in any State to the contrary. So that the oath every officer 
 should take in regard to the constitution of their own State, 
 should be to support and defend the constitution of their own 
 State, so far as it accords with the Constitution of the United 
 States ; and that they would support and defend the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, notwithstanding any constitution or 
 law in any State to the contrary. This woiild be truly in ac- 
 cordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the United 
 States, which contams all the provisions of the Union, and no 
 Union exists outside of it. 
 
16 
 
 There has been a great deal said about the reserved rights of a 
 State. If we look and see what has been prohibited to the 
 States, we can easily see what is reserved to a State. If a State 
 has no power to pass an ex post facto law, imparing the obligation 
 of contracts, she has no power to deprive any citizen of any 
 right secured to him, either by'the Constitution of the State or 
 the United States, nor impair the contract that secured that 
 right. So the power reserved to a State is, that they have the 
 power to make any law necessary to protect the citizens to the 
 extent and boundary of their own State, (but no further,) in all 
 the rights and liberties they have secured to themselves under 
 the Constitution of the United States, or their owti State. But 
 they have no power to deprive them of any right, not even to 
 the value of a pin. All rights reserved to States are reserved 
 to the people of the States, and not the Legislatures of the States. 
 The right reserved to people of States, in part is, to elect their 
 officers for the State, and also all the officers to go to Congress, 
 which are the agents of the people of the States, their own Le- 
 gislatures, and fix the term of time they shall hold their 
 office, and appoint by themselves, and in their authority under 
 the constitution, the manner in which they shall be appointed ; 
 to transact all their domestic affairs of the State ; appoint ma- 
 gistrates, sheriffs, constabl^, and all other necessary officers, 
 and many other things not necessary to name. Those things 
 are reserved to the States to manage for themselves. But 
 every officer is bound, from the constable to the President of 
 the United States, to support and defend the Constitution of 
 the United States, which does contain every provision of the 
 Union that does exist. 
 
 The word Liberty is often used both by kings and monarchs, 
 and it seems that its true meaning is not well understood, and 
 is often badly applied. The true meaning of the word Liberty 
 is, to have rights and privileges, and be well secured and pro- 
 tected in the right of using them. This Constitution of the 
 United States has given to the members of this Union more 
 rights and liberties than any other government on earth, and, 
 as I have shown, has permanently secured them by those pro- 
 visions. I have sho^Ti that our risrhts and liberties are as 
 
17 
 
 firmly secured as the laws of the Medes and Persians, which 
 could not be altered or changed. For the Constitution pro- 
 vides that no ex post facto law shall be passed. And as no ex post 
 facto law can be passed, no right already secured can be taken 
 from us by any made hereafter. And as no one has power to 
 impair the contract that secured those contracts, and this Union- 
 was to be perpetual, it secures them for ever . But, in one re- 
 spect, our government far excels that of the Medes and Per- 
 sians. We have provided that amendments may be made, so 
 that, if time and experience should cause us to see that any de- 
 fects existed in giving a permanent security to our rights, we 
 have a right to amend and make ourselves as secure as the wis- 
 dom of man could devise. 
 
 But we acted with great caution in providing a way for 
 amendments, and also fixed firm checks to prevent any acts 
 under the name of amendments, from having any chance to de- 
 prive us of our rights, already secured, as I have previously 
 explained. Now those provisions of the Constitution show 
 clearly that the framers of the Constitution had but one object 
 in view, and that was, to protect the citizens in all their rights, 
 liberties and privileges. There was but one way in which it 
 could be done, and that was, by prohibiting and restricting all 
 oificers and all legislative bodies from having any power to cre- 
 ate laws, to deprive them of their rights, as they have done. 
 There could be no freer trade to any people than is secured by 
 the Constitution of the United States, for it provides that no 
 duty or tax shall be laid on any article exported from any State, 
 and that no article shall enter free in one port, and pay duty in 
 another, and that the duties shall be uniform throughout the 
 United States. It also provides " that no imposition duties or 
 restrictions shall be laid by any State upon the property of 
 the United States, or either of them." So that there cannot 
 be any tax or duties laid on any articles exported from the 
 United States to any foreign government. Neither can there 
 be any tax or duty laid on any article exported from any State 
 to any other State. This is as free a trade as can be made by 
 any government. 
 
 Now, this is the kind of government that has been thrown 
 
18 
 
 away, and wished to be destroyed, both by the Secessionists and 
 the Lincoln Abolitionists, and separate States Rights platforms, 
 and forcing the people to fight to establish the security of the 
 life," liberty and property of the people under the control of the 
 legislative bodies. 
 
 As there has been so much said about separate States Rights 
 sovereignty, and the reserved rights of the States, perhaps it 
 will be better to make some better " showing,^^ as to what is 
 meant by those words, used both in the " Articles of Confede- 
 ration" and in the Constitution of the United States. The Ar- 
 ticles of Confederation provides : 
 
 " Art. 2d. That each State retains its sovereignty, freedom 
 and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right 
 which is not by this Confederation delegated to the United 
 States in Congress assembled." This shows clearly that the 
 people, jointly throughout the United States, had delegated 
 power to other agents to be transacted jointly for other pur- 
 poses than the affairs of a separate State ; but for the purpose 
 of transacting busmess in Avhich all were equally interested. 
 But while retaining the sovereignty, freedom and independence, 
 and evei-y power, jurisdiction and right, they excluded the ne- 
 cessary power which was expressly delegated to their joint 
 agents. Now let us see what were these sovereign rights wliich 
 were retained to each State, for the word each, States who were 
 members of the Union. Now, the right of each State, or the 
 people of each State retained was, the right to elect the officers 
 that were to transact their joint agency, and also to elect all 
 the officers of their own State ; and also to provide a constitu- 
 tion as a power of attorney by which to transact their business. 
 
 When there is a written power of attorney given to an agent 
 or agents, it is a settled principle, settled by all law, that when 
 they have acted as far as the power of attorney authorizes, 
 their power ceases. Now, the people have in their joint agree- 
 ment delegated certain business for all their agents, who trans- 
 act their joint agency, and have expressly named what each 
 agent shall transact, what services Congress shall perform, what 
 services the Judges of the Supreme Court shall render, what 
 services each officer in all the departments of the government 
 
19 
 
 shall attend to, and for what length of time shall hold their of- 
 fices. So that, all their powers are delegated, and it is set 
 apart what services each shall render, from the President to the 
 constable. All are sworn to discharge the duties of the offices 
 to which they are appointed, to the best of their ability, and 
 that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 All the officers who act under the General Government are 
 not sworn to support or defend the constitution of any State , 
 but every one is sworn to support and defend the Constitution 
 of the United States. This shows clearly that all the Union 
 that does exist is contained in the Constitution of the United 
 States, and that it is a union of individuals, and not a union of 
 State Legislatures, having the absolute control over the life, 
 liberty and property of the people. And those provisions, 
 both of the '' Articles of Confederation" and the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States show clearly that the people have not 
 surrendered either to their agents nor their State governments 
 any part of their sovereignty, for the people of each State has 
 retained the right to elect their own officers, accordmg to their 
 population, to transact all their joint agencies. And as all the 
 power they have to transact is delegated, it shows clearly that 
 not one of these officers, from the President to the constable, 
 has one particle of sovereignty invested in themselves. They 
 are all confined by the provisions of the Constitution of the 
 United States, to act within the bounds of the commission of 
 the office for which they were elected, and they have no power 
 to act further. This is the case with the legislators of Congress, 
 for their pov>'ers are delegated, set apart and expressly named, 
 and they have no power that is not expressly named. Neither 
 have the legislators of the States any j^owers but what are ex- 
 pressly named. 
 
 All the powers they possess are named and delegated by the 
 people of each State, and by the constitutions of their several 
 States, and they have no power but what is expressly named by 
 the constitution of their own State. Neither have the people 
 of any State power to make a constitution or law to impair any 
 contract that exists under their joint agreement between them- 
 selves and the people of all the other States. Because, accord- 
 
20 
 
 ing to the agreement that existed betv.ecn them, no State was 
 to have power to impau- the obligation of contracts; and one 
 of these contracts was, that the Unioii should be perpetual. - 
 No State has power to make a law to extend its laws into 
 any other State. No officer is bound to support and de- 
 fend the laws of any State but his own. No officer trans- 
 acting the joint agency of the United States is bound by 
 any oath to support and defend the constitution of any 
 State. This shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that 
 this Union was not a union of so^ ereign State Legislatures, 
 neither is it a iinion of State authorities. . But if further 
 proof is necessary to show that tlic Union, under the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, was not a union of State authority^ 
 but that the Union was of individuals, and not of State au- 
 thority, let us define the word sovereignty, and see whether it 
 will apply to the State Legislatures of either State, or the 
 United States. It is true I have fully shoAvn that their powers 
 "were all delegated, which would exclude all claim to sovereign- 
 ty; for the word sovereignty will not apply to any one, only 
 those who can act without being imder any obligation, only 
 their own vnW. And as all legislators, acting under the author- 
 ity of the constitution both of the State and the United States, 
 are delegated, and have no power to act, nor remain in office 
 longer than the time for which they were elected. 
 
 Otherwise, then, it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt, 
 that the word sovereignty c^avnoi apply to the Legislatures either 
 of States or the LTnited States. But if not to them, let us see 
 if the word sovereignty can- rightly be applied to the people 
 under the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 All sovereigns claim the right to create the laws to the ex- 
 tent and boundaries of their territorial jurisdiction, Now, 
 when the people gained their independence from the King of 
 England, by their delegates, formed a joint agreement to sus- 
 tain each other in the rights of independence, which they did, 
 as I have clearly shown. They elected members to a conven- 
 tion for the purpose of adopting certain principles as the stand- 
 ard of government. They adopted the " Articles of Confede- 
 ration," but as they did. not bind themselves to abide by such 
 principles as they might adopt, they retained the right to decide 
 
21 
 
 for themselves. So the principles they adopted were not bind- 
 ing nntil the people elected another set of delegates with power 
 and authority to ratify and adopt the principles contained in 
 the " Articles of Confederation," as the standard of govern- 
 ment. They all agreed to be governed by these principles, and 
 to govern all others by them. And in those principles they 
 agreed to require an oath from every one who should hold an 
 otfice, that they would support and defend all the rights se- 
 cured to themselves under that agreement. They provided 
 that the Union should be perpetual. They also provided that 
 amendments might be made, but that no ex pod facto laiv should 
 be made, nor law imparing the obligation of contracts should 
 be passed. Now, it Avill be seen, if examined into, that the 
 people have never been bound by any other power but them- 
 selves, and their own consent, and at all times retained the sove- 
 reign right not to be bound by any other obligation than their 
 own will. For, although they have provided in the " Articles 
 of Confederation" that amendments may be made, and also in 
 what is called the Constitution of the United States, which is 
 only an amendment of the first, that amendments maj'' be made, 
 and the word amendment must be in accordance with the first, 
 or it would not be an amendment. The provisions both of the 
 Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are adopted for 
 the security and protection of the people against all attacks 
 made against them on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, 
 or any other pretence whatever. Now, whatever addition was 
 made by the way of amendments that would make the people 
 more secure in all these things, would be an amendment ; but 
 any addition that would make the people less secure, under the 
 name of an amendment, would be passing an ex post facto law, 
 and a law imparing the obligation of contracts. Now, let us 
 see what is provided to the delegating powers in the amend- 
 ment called the Constitution of the United States. It provides 
 that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Con- 
 stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, be reserved to the 
 States respectively, or the people. Now, let us see what wa.s 
 reserved to the States or the people. Mind, that portion of the 
 Constitution was sjieaking of the delegating powers; tliat is, 
 all powers not delegated, were undelegated, and if delegated at 
 
22 
 
 all, must be delegated by three-fourths of the States, or the 
 people; and that they had to be adopted by the people, and 
 become part of the Constitution in the same manner, and in the 
 same way that all the other parts of the Constitution were cre- 
 ated. They were created by the consent of three-fourths of the 
 people, before it could bocome a part of the Constitution. 
 So, you see, the people had the right to. create the laws by 
 which they should be bound ; and, in this way, have never parted 
 with any part of their sovereignty. But as the word State has 
 been wrongly applied by the Calhoun party, and the Abolition 
 party, and, by false construction, applied or made to mean legis- 
 lative bodies of each State, and that they were sovereign, and 
 not the people. But let us see if the word State will apply 
 to the legislatures in any manner, whatever. When the Kmg 
 of England relinquished his claim in the United States, his ter- 
 ritorial claims were called by the names — New York, Virginia, 
 North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, &c. Now, those 
 names, and all the names attached to colonies, only represented 
 the boundary of territory, which also included the people within 
 the boundary of said territory — claimed by him as his subjects. 
 So, when he acknowledged the independence of the people with- 
 in the boundaries of these territories, he simply relinquished his 
 claim on all these colonies by name, whereas if he had only ac- 
 knowledged a part of the colonies, that part not acknowledged 
 he could still claim. But he did acknowledge all that is now 
 by us called States. Now, will any sane man pretend to say 
 that the Avord South Carolina, means the Legislature of South 
 Carolina ? Or will any one pretend to say that the word Geor- 
 gia, means the Legislature of Georgia ? Is not the word State, 
 put in the place of Colonij ? and did not the word Colony, re- 
 present the territorial boundary of that territory. Now, when 
 the word State is used, either in the " Articles of Confederation" 
 or the Constitution of the United States, the true meaning is, 
 the territory and boundaries which include the people. And 
 the word State, is generally used to include the people within 
 the boundaries of the State, without any reference to the legis- 
 lature, whatever. When the word State is used, it always means 
 the territory, or the people, and very often both ; but when we 
 
23 
 
 define the word sovereignty, the legislators of a State have a 
 very poor showing, as it regards being under no obligation 
 but their own will. A man cannot be a member to act as legis- 
 lator, unless the people elect him. He cannot take a seat in the 
 house unless he takes an oath to support and defend the con- 
 stitution of his own State, and* the Constitution of the United 
 States. This shows clearly that both these departments of 
 government belong to the people that elected them, for they 
 are bound to support l)0th. They cannot remain members any 
 longer than the Constitution — created by the people — permits. 
 They cannot create any power but what the delegated power 
 authorized them to make ; they cannot pass ex post facto laws, 
 nor laws imparing the obligations of contracts; they cannot de- 
 clare war nor make peace, enter into any treaty or contract with 
 another State or foreign power ; they cannot make anything 
 but gold and silver a legal tender, in payment of debt — and 
 many other things too tedious to mention. Since Mr. Calhoun 
 intended to make the legislatures of the States sovereign, we 
 need not wonder that he tried to get them out of the Union — 
 for of all Sovereigns, they have the poorest chance, to cai'ry out 
 acts of sovereignty, I have ever read or heard of. But if Mr. 
 Calhoun's states rights sovereignty be transferred to the legis- 
 latures of each State, so as to give them the absolute control 
 over both the lives, liberty and property of the people, and 
 a right to emancipate their property and take every thing from 
 the people, and be imdeu" no obligation but their own will, they 
 would take away from the people the right to decide for them- 
 selves and choose their own mode and measure of defence. 
 And if the people refused allegiance to them, so as to bring 
 themselves under the displeasure of their only and lawful 
 sovereigns, and within the severe pains and penalties by which 
 their Legislatures, in their high and sovereign power, would not 
 fail to provide for her self-defence, in no case, where their 
 authority was called in question, should judges or jury be per- 
 mitted to sit on trial (unless they were first sovereign) to decide 
 for them and against the citizen. The same might be tried 
 without being plead, and they should not be permitted to take 
 an appeal, or copy of an appeal, to the Courts of the United 
 
24 
 
 States. But if they attempted to take an appeal, or copy of an 
 appeal, the person so attempting should be dealt with for con 
 tempt of court. So that if Mr. Calhoun's State Rights sover- 
 eignty is established in the legislative bodies of each State, the 
 people have a very jjoor shoAving for their sovereignty, and 
 would be left without the shadow of sovereignty or protection 
 in any form. The legislative bodies, in the Ordinance of 1832, 
 also provided that the legislative bodies should have power to 
 prescribe, from time to time, what oath of allegiance the officers 
 and citizens should take ; and also defined what should be con- 
 sidered treason against the Legislatures, and the punishment 
 annexed. There was a bill drawn up to define what should 
 constitute treason against Mr. Calhoun's sovereign legislators, 
 which provided that if any one spoke against any act the Legis- 
 lature passed, or resisted, in any manner whatever, the penalty 
 should be death, without the benefit of the clergy. This bill 
 was not passed. They then provided that there should be no 
 appeal from the decision of a court-martial, so that the Legis- 
 latures could place the punishment of any offence into the hands 
 of the military courts, and inflict any jjunishment on the people 
 they thought proper by their military power. They also pro- 
 vided, that they would not admit of any^allegiance to any other 
 authority than the Legislatures of the States, and to these they 
 might transfer their allegiance. This shows that there must 
 have been some intention on the part of the States Rights party 
 to transfer the people to some other power, as they had pro- 
 vided for transferring in the Ordinance, and explained in the 
 address accompanying the Ordinance in 1832. Now, you see 
 this is absolutely usurping the power from the people and 
 placing more power in the hands of the Legislatures, than is 
 possessed by any King or Prince in any Christian land. Let us 
 see what kind of a government this would make, and see 
 whether any such government would remain in existence, and 
 whether any such government could give any security or pro- 
 tection to the people of the United States. The Legislatures 
 of each State are to be separate, sovereign and independent — 
 under no obligation, only their own will, more than any King, 
 Prince or Potentate. Now, if the Legislature of each State is' 
 
25 
 
 irnder no obligation except their own will — having a right to 
 decide for themselves, and choose their own mode and manner 
 of redress — there coiild be no Union with other States. For if 
 they are under no obligation except their own will, there could 
 be no agreement between them and the other States; if no 
 agreement, no Union could exist. Therefore, this principle of 
 " States Rights Sovereignty," in the Legislatures of each State, 
 would create as. many separate and distinct governments as 
 there were States, all under no obligation but their own will, no 
 more than any King, Prince or Potentate. • 
 
 Neither would they suifer themselves to be under any other 
 restraint, and to carry out that principle they would be obliged 
 to remain in that situation permanently. Now, we will say no 
 Union should exist, nor dispute be settled by law, for the de- 
 claration of the ordinance is, that they had the right to decide 
 for themselves, and choose their own mode and manner of de- 
 fence, and no lawful arbiter could be found sufficiently impartial 
 to decide against them ; therefore, none was provided. 
 
 Now, according to this plan of government, the States that 
 owned all the coast and ports of entry could, if they were in- 
 dependent governments, by other powers acknowleged, enter 
 into treaties and compacts, and treaties of commerce. But 
 none of the back States could, for they would have no ports of 
 entry on which to make a treaty. And those States bordering 
 on the coast, to carry out their first propositions, would be un- 
 der no obligation except their own will ; neither would they 
 suffer themselves to be under any other obligation. It would 
 not do for them to enter into any treaty with the other States. 
 But if they should let the other States have commerce through 
 their ports, they might tax them to any amount for the privi- 
 lege. And could any one State be able to pay the expenses of 
 sending a minister to enter into commercial intercourse, and 
 send consuls to every port where we had commerce with other 
 nations, or defend the rights of its citizens according to the 
 treaty agreed to ? 
 
 Or would a State be able to keep ships and navies to protect 
 her commerce to and from her ports ? Or, if a treaty of com- 
 merce were disregarded by those with whom they made the 
 
26 
 
 treaty, would a State have physical power sufficient to send an 
 army, and punish the offenders ? Could any government re- 
 main under such a form, or could it be a government at all ? 
 Therefore you may see the necessity of providing that part of 
 the ordmance where they provide that they would not admit of 
 any allegiance to any other authority than the legislature, and 
 to these they would transfer their allegiance. Now, the remedy 
 he proposes for settling disputes between Congress, is for each 
 State to decide for themselves. In his book on governments, he 
 says, that th^ people are sovereign at the start ; but that the 
 States (meaning the Legislatures,) have created two govern- 
 ments, one a Federal government, the other a State goverment, 
 that the power not delegated to the Federal was reserved to the 
 State ; that each one of these two governments was sovereign. 
 The Federal government was sovereign as far as its power was 
 delegated, and all the remainder of power was reserved to the 
 Legislatures of the States. In this manner he represents Con- 
 gress to be sovereign as far as her delegated power is concerned, 
 and the legislative bodies of the States were sovereign over all 
 the remainder of the power, and that each government had the 
 right to decide for itself as to the extent of their power, and 
 choose their own mode and manner of redress. He says that 
 each one has the right to decide as to the extent of their power. 
 Over whom ? He says, over the people. Not over the govern- 
 ment, but over the people. He says the government cannot be 
 made defendant, for they are sovereign, but they may become 
 plaintiff if they choose. But, he says, when the States and the 
 Federal government come into conflict in regard to their power, 
 each having a right to decide for themselves, choose their own 
 mode and manner of defence, the State can resort to remon- 
 strance, or try to form a party of the nearest combination of 
 interests, so as to be able to get a compromise. Now, a corn- 
 promisor has to take M'hat he can get, not what he ought to 
 have. So this plan of government by Mr. Calhoun is a very 
 poor protector, under any circumstance. If you have no better 
 protection against those scamps than to remonstrate and com- 
 promise, you might as well tell a thief, who had stolen your 
 horse, that if he would not steal any more he might keep him, 
 
aud then not ex2:)ect him to steal any more. Does any one be- 
 lieve he would not steal any more ? But another remedy of- 
 fered was, secession. This remedy, his party are trying now, 
 which he recommended as the best of all, and surest against all 
 the evils spoken of. 
 
 We see what great protection we have; and how secure every 
 man is in his home, his family and fireside, as was promised. 
 Now, all those principles and remedies proposed by Mr. Cal- 
 houn are outside of the Constitution, both of the States and 
 the United States, and, if established, would destroy the gov- 
 ernment of the people. But those remedies were introduced 
 to protect the government of the Legislatures of the States, 
 against the Legislators of Congress. 
 
 There is not one argument used by Mr. Calhoun to protect 
 the citizen against acts of majorities, nor acts of legislation 
 either in the States or the United States ; tl^erefore, according 
 to his State Rights government, they have no power but to 
 obey. And, as Congress and the Legislatures both had the 
 right to decide for themselves as to the extent of their own 
 power over the people, and the people had no course but to 
 obey, I think it leaves the people in a very bad condition, and, 
 I think they might begin to find it out. But now it appears 
 that Lincoln is acting with both these powers to emancipate. He 
 has, or pretended he would, emancipate both by legislation and 
 acts of majorities in Congress and in the States. Now, the 
 point of difference M'as, that Congress has not the right to 
 emancipate, but that it should not be denied ; but that, the 
 Legislatures of the States had the right to emancipate every- 
 thing from the people, so he and his party both are Abolition- 
 ists. There is no difference in their principles, so let the people 
 of the North and the South look into these things and see if 
 either of the Legislatures had the right to emancipate the Afri- 
 can property. 
 
 They have, as they claim, and as they are really acting upon, 
 the right of taking away life, liberty and property from the 
 people, by forcing them to kill, rob and murder each other, 
 whether they are willing or not. To establish the power of 
 legislation, or acts of legislation, either in Congress or States, 
 
28 
 
 is a government of robbery instead of a government of protec- 
 tion. Such is the Government of the Constitution of the United 
 States, as I have so fully shown. Now, all those powers claimed 
 under Lincoln's party and under Calhoun's party, are outside of 
 the Constitution — are witiiout foundation — and in that way they 
 settled all their disputes, instead of referring to the Courts of 
 the United States. Their compromises were unconstitutional. 
 Not one of them could give any security for the future ; but, as 
 Mr. Webster said, he hoped that no more slave States would 
 come into the Union, this was supporting and encouraging the 
 principle of robbing, under the acts of legislative power, and 
 depriving the people of the rights secured to themselves under 
 the Constitution ; for the Constitution of the United States and 
 the Articles of Confederation are all parts of the Union, as I 
 have before shown. They provide that each citizen of each 
 State shall have free egress and ingress to and from any other 
 State, and be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the 
 citizens of the several States, subject to the duties, taxation and 
 restrictions of the same State ; provided such restriction shall 
 not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property into 
 any other State. And provided, also, that no imposition duties 
 or restrictions shall be laid by any State on the property of the 
 United States, or either of them. Now, it will be seen that 
 Mr. Webster's counsel was outside of the Constitution, and, like 
 Clay and Calhoun, if his principles were adopted, they would 
 utterly destroy all the rights secured to the people under the 
 fixed and established principles of their government. As no 
 law nor regulation should be passed by any State, to discharge 
 a servant, or person bound to service due to a citizen of another 
 State, and as no State had power to pass an ex post facto law, or 
 law imparing the obligation of contracts, and the citizens were 
 to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects, we 
 see that if Webster's principles were adopted they Avould take 
 away every security from the people. For their principles 
 leave them in the hands of legislative power, and without any 
 protection imder the laws established under the Constitution. 
 Now, Calhoim's plan of government is to adopt his own States 
 Rights legislative power, and also adopt Clay's remedy of com- 
 
29 
 
 promising policy for Webster's abolition principles, for his party- 
 convention in Cincinnati. In their platform or plan of govern- 
 ment, they declared that it shonld not be denied, but that 
 a State had a right to emancipate — which, according to the ap- 
 plication of the word State, applied by Mr. Calhoun, is meant 
 the Legislatures of the States. So you see that neither of those 
 three great champions advocated the rights of the people, but 
 advocated the right in legislative bodies to have the power over 
 the lives, libei'ties and property of the people ; and the right to 
 take everything from the people, being under no obligation 
 except their own will. Now, this is the platform of the gov- 
 ernment laid down by Clay, Calhoun and Webster ; and this is 
 the kind of government attempted to be carried out by the 
 Lincoln and the Davis party. This is the deplorable condition 
 of the people under their military power ; for as I have hereto- 
 fore stated and explahied, that this Union could never be 
 destroyed unless we created parties. And that the liberties of 
 the people were so securely protected under the Constitution, 
 that they could never take them away unless they got them 
 under military power — and both these they have accomplished. 
 From what I have shown, neither Calhoun, Clay nor Webster 
 ever pretended to dispute that a State had the right to emanci- 
 pate. But Clay's party, and Webster's party, never defined how 
 far their power extended. But the Calhoun party has defined 
 the power of emancipation — ^how far it extends in the hands of 
 the Legislatures of each State — that they had the absolute con- 
 trol over the lives, liberty and property of the people — that they 
 had the clear right to declare these obligations, and when once 
 declared, the people had no course but to obey. But if they 
 refused obedience to their only and lawful sovereign, the Legis- 
 latures in their high and sovereign capacity could not fail to 
 provide for their self-defence, the fault and folly would be their 
 own. This principle, if established over the people, would be 
 one of the greatest despotisms that exists on the globe. 
 
 Now, while those great politicians were pretending to oppose 
 each other, and representing themselves as the great protectors 
 of the people's rights secured to themselves by the Constitution, 
 they were undermining every right, liberty and privilege they 
 
30 
 
 had secured to themselves. But all three of these men have 
 been called to a judgment seat, to be tried by a tribunal that 
 cannot be deceived. They may betray and deceive man, but 
 they cannot deceive God. So let all our politicians think of 
 what benefits they received on earth, and what may be their 
 punishment hereafter. See what destruction of life and proj)- 
 erty, what misery and distress has resulted from the principles 
 they have imposed on the confiding and unsusi^ecting. Will 
 God suffer such things ? 
 
 Now, after that I have shown all these things, when we con- 
 sider who these men Avere, who laid the foundation for the 
 destruction of our government, and who introduced so many 
 misconstructions of our government, is it not the most astonish- 
 ing thing that so many good and wise men among us have over- 
 looked the misconstructions put upon the plan of protecting 
 our rights, liberty and property. We have been uniting with 
 these parties, and looking up to their teachings as a guide, in 
 place of examining for ourselves, and thus we are dragged under 
 despotism. But each of these three leaders had their parties, 
 and each party looked up to' their leader as their guide and 
 director. The object of those who made the most noise was to 
 get an ofiice, as a reward for his party services ; and this is the 
 way so many good men have been deceived, and have become 
 like the blind man leading the blind, when both fall into the 
 ditch. We do know that thousands upon thousands of as good 
 men as the Avorld has produced, have fallen in and taken sides 
 with all those party combinations, and they were all wrong. 
 And indeed, we can find very few Avho have not taken sides 
 with one party or other, and, as I have shown, have been acting 
 in direct opposition to their own interests. And I have written 
 this work to propose a compromise with all parties, for we have 
 all done wrong. 
 
 Let everything be forgiven by all parties that have existed 
 heretofore, that no charge of treason shall be brought against 
 any one. For w6 have all been guilty of assisting these parties 
 in carrying out those princiiiles which were opposed to the gov- 
 ernment, established by the people, and the charge of treason 
 might be applied to all. We know that there are thousands 
 
31 
 
 «pon thousands of cases where wrong was done. It was an 
 error of the head and not of the heart. And as we do not 
 know who was guilty, or wrong intentionally, let all things past 
 be forgiven ; let there be no charge of treason ; no confiscation 
 of property ; no exciting ; no disfranchising from holding of- 
 fice. But let all parties fall back under the Constitution in its 
 purity, where every member is secured in the right to buy 
 whatever property he thinks fit, and go with it into any State 
 or Territory in the United States, and be protected in it. Now, 
 establish this plan of government, as it is really the original 
 government established by the Constitution in all its original 
 purity, with the necessary explanations I have set forth. This 
 Union could never more be destroyed. And as our experience 
 has proved, we will not need to keep^ standing army, for every 
 one is under the Union. A standing army to defend each other 
 on account of religion, sovereignty, or any pretence Avhatever. 
 So we need no army, except for the protection of our commerce 
 against pirates, as it goes to and from our i^orts, and our fron- 
 tier territories from savage depredations. But to become as 
 happy a people as we were, it might be proper to dispense with 
 the payment of the debts contracted by these two parties. For 
 I consider both the parties nothing but mob governments. 
 Both of them are out of the Union — Lincoln as much as Davis. 
 Neither of them is acknowledged as an independent govern- 
 ment. All the commercial intercourse of Lincoln's government 
 is carried on through the treaty existing under the authority of 
 the people's government, and, as good luck will have it, we are 
 not in debt to any other government for the expenses of this 
 war, and these two parties being nothing but mobs, no one has 
 any right to pay. 
 
 The manner in which I would recommend that this compro- 
 mise should be made, is 'this: let a meeting of all the Legisla- 
 tures, North and South, be called ; let them call for an armis- 
 tice, and then let a member from every county in each State 
 meet to hold a peace convention. And if this platform, written 
 by me, be adopted, let the Governor of every State be directed 
 to call every man in his State to order all the officers and sol- 
 diers to shoulder arms and come home. Let them be armed so 
 
32 
 
 that no undue advantage could be taken of them by any mob. 
 Now, this convention ought to be elected by the people. And 
 let every State have this platform presented in whatever num- 
 bers they might think necessary ; so that it might be examined 
 by the people, and let them elect members to the convention 
 to approve or disapprove of it. It is my own opinion that there 
 AvUl not be one man who wishes for the welfare of his country, 
 or the happiness and security of the people, who will not be 
 willing to adopt it. There is another thing I would recom- 
 mend, that the Presidents of these two mob governments should 
 both resign, and let all the members of Congress in each gov- 
 ernment resign. And, indeed, those co nventions have the right 
 to call on them to resign, and elect others in their place, but 
 give any of them the privi|^ege of being a candidate for any of- 
 fice for which they desire to run. 
 
 It is my desire that no man shall be disgraced, who willingly 
 falls back under the Union in its origmal purity, for we- have all 
 been so guilty of wrong in these matters, that we must go back 
 forgiving, and as far as possible, forget all past wrongs, as far as 
 it regards one another. Let us be governed by the coimsel of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when asked by his apostles if they 
 should forgive one another seven times, he told them not only 
 seven times, but seventy times seven. 
 
 Although I had but two sons, David and Jonathan, lovely, 
 kind, obliging, dutiful sons, with a happy prospect before them) 
 and have lost both in the war, I am willing to forgive all who 
 will return willingly to the LTnion in its original purity. But 
 there is one thing against which I wish to guard the minds of 
 the people, that is, saying that they would rather go under any 
 king or monarch than go back into the Union. They use those 
 words, thinking that the Lincoln government is the original 
 Union, which it is not. For the Abolitionists prohibit every 
 citizen from owning slave property in their own State, and pro- 
 hibit the people of other States, owning African property, from 
 moving >vith their property into their States. They have left 
 the Union, and if the South unites with them, the riglit of every 
 citizen in his own State must be acknowledged, to own and buy 
 slave property if he choose ; the right also for every citizen 
 
83 
 
 who is a member of the Union, to move into any other State 
 or Territory in the Union. In this way there could be no par- 
 ties among us. But those who say they would go under any 
 other government than go back into the Union and Constitu- 
 tion in its purity, do not know how many evils they would have 
 to imdergo in a government of a king. We have been told 
 that we resisted the government of England on account of the 
 tax on tea ; but that was not the cause of our resistance. The 
 colonies legislated on all domestic affairs, as we do now in States, 
 but their acts were not acknowledged to become a law until 
 ratified by the Parliament of England. The time for passing 
 at that period was so long and tedious, and our acts or calls on 
 England for protection from the Indians so often forgotten or 
 neglected, and we being in the power of England, could be 
 forced to fight when and where they pleased, and pay taxes as 
 often as they pleased. Our statesmen saw the dangers ahead 
 of them, and this and similar circumstances caused them to re- 
 sist the King of England. 
 
 Now, if we were to put ourselves under any other govern- 
 ment, this would be our condition. Our sons could be taken 
 from their fathers and mothers to fight in foreign coimtries — 
 husbands from their wives and children. They would tax us 
 to any amount they pleased, like those two military chieftains 
 are doing now. There is no safety but to go back under the 
 people's government, and then you will be safe from all these 
 things. 
 
 Now let us see who were those that created the party, and 
 how, when and who introduced and advocated their principles, 
 until they have assumed such a form of despotism as it is this 
 day. Calhoun, Clay and Webster were considered the great 
 champions of their day, and we^e looked up to as guides, by 
 which to conduct the ship of our government of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States safely through. Each one acted his 
 part in the destruction of our government of the people. Clay 
 was a great compromisor. Webster hoped that there would not 
 be any more slave States. Calhoun was a great separate States 
 Rights man. All these principles were outside of the Constitu. 
 
 tion, but they answered the j^urpose of creating parties. Each 
 3 
 
34 
 
 party, in place of examining the Constitution for the correctness 
 of their principles, quoted their arguments as the standard of 
 government, in place of the principles embodied in the Consti- 
 tution, and by that means divided the people into great political 
 parties, each and every one of them acting outside of the Con- 
 stitution, and without any legal authority, for the conventions 
 that framed a government for the people of the United States, 
 did not leave their rights in the hands of compromisors ; but as 
 I have clearly shown, secured all their rights, and fixed them 
 so secure that no compromisor has any right to compromise 
 them away. If we had no better security for our rights than 
 compromises, or one party against another, it would be no 
 security at all. It would be like throwing a cork on the sea — 
 it would be here to-day, but no one could tell where it would 
 be to-morrow. These are the principles adopted by these three 
 great politicians. Mr. Clay was a great compromisor, so was 
 Webster and Calhoun. The plan of settling all disputes, com- 
 promise in place of a court and jury, as is appointed by the Con- 
 stitution. Now, if we had no other way to settle disputes but 
 by compromise, it takes two to agree to a compromise before 
 you can get a compromise, and if one of the parties did not 
 intend to pay the debt, of course he would not agree to com- 
 promise ; and if you had no other way to get your money you 
 would have to take it by force, or not get it at all. Now, if we 
 adopt this plan of government to settle all cases of dispute as a 
 standard of government, in place of a court and jury, those 
 principles alone would destroy the government of the people ; 
 for whenever there is no court and jury, there can be no gov- 
 ernment, and now mind, this plan of government is to be agreed 
 to by those men. Assummg the law-making power, they were 
 to be the compromisors themselves, Avhether the people should 
 submit to the laws they passed or not. So you see this was 
 laying down the same principles they have been carrying out to 
 take the power out of the people and fix it in themselves, for if 
 we have no court and jury, of course we, the people, have no 
 government, and this plan would leave the legislators to decide 
 for themselves, choose their own mode and measure of defence, 
 and then under no obligation to the people than their own will. 
 
35 
 
 corresponding with Calhonn's platform of govemmient. Now 
 let U8 examine Mr. Webster's platform, and see whether it runs 
 into the same channel. He hopes there will be no more slave 
 States admitted into the Union, and also agrees to the right of 
 a State to emancipate. So does Calhomi and Clay. So we see 
 they all three agree on that principle as the standard of govern" 
 ment. So they all agree that far. In the Cincinnati Convention 
 they declared it should not be denied but that a State had the 
 right to emancipate ; and in the general Democratic Convention, 
 as they call themselves, their declarations were, that a State had 
 the right to take everything from the people. But let us see 
 what the Constitutional Government, created by the people, 
 says, and see if Messrs. Webster, Clay and Calhoun's principles 
 are not right in opposition to the constituted authority of the 
 people's government, and if adopted would destroy every pro- 
 vision in the Constitution of the United States, as completely 
 as if it never had existed, which is the only Union that exists. 
 Now, as all who claim the right of sovereignty, claim the 
 right to create the laws that are to govern within their territorial 
 government, they being sovereign, the laws they create^ are sov- 
 ereign, and by those laws they control all within their territorial 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Now, the people of the United States being sovereign, they 
 claim the right to create the laws they are to be governed by, 
 in place of kings, monarchs and despots creating them. Now, 
 the laws they created will be sovereign also. They all agree to 
 be governed by those laws and to govern all others by them. 
 Now, the laws they created will be found, first, in the Declara- 
 tion of Independence ; secondly, under the Articles of Confed- 
 eration ; thirdly, by the way of amendments, called the Consti- 
 tution of the United States. But the Avords United States in- 
 cluded all three of those docum3ats, for the Constitution pro- 
 vides that all engagements entered into before the adoption of 
 the Constitution shall be as valid against the United States as 
 under the Confederation; and that -this Union should be per- 
 petual ; and that all men in office throughout the United States 
 should be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support and de- 
 fend the Constitution of the United States, notwithstanding 
 
36 
 
 any constitution or law in any State to the contrary. So you 
 see that the officers of every State are bound by oath, or affirma- 
 tion, to disregard the constitution or law of their own State, or 
 of any other State, if it conflicts with the laws created under 
 the Constitution of the United States, and only because it was 
 created by the sovereign people jointly of all the United States, 
 and they agreed jointly that they would be governed by those 
 fixed, established principles themselves, and govern all others 
 by them. They also agreed that they should be the supreme 
 law of the land ; but that amendments might be made, but that 
 no amendment should be made but by the consent of three- 
 fourths of the States. Now, as every law contained in the Con- 
 stitution of the United States is provided and adopted for the 
 protection of each member of the Union, and preserve him or 
 her securely in their persons, papers, houses, and effects ; and 
 that we, under the agreement of a firm league of friendship, to 
 support each other against all attacks made against us, or any 
 of us, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other 
 pretence whatever, which would include everything that could 
 be thought of or named. Now, let me see whether Webster's 
 principles will correspond with those established under this 
 league of friendship, and the laws the people agreed to be gov- 
 erned, and to govern all others by. Now, it appears that Mr. 
 Webster hopes that no move States shall be admitted into the 
 Union as slave States. Now, let me see what the Constitution^, 
 or Articles of Confederation says. It provides that the citizens' 
 of each State shall have free ingress and egress to and from any 
 other State, and enjoy all the privileges and immunities of the 
 citizens' in the several States, subject to the same duties, tax- 
 ation and restrictions of the same State respectively ; provided 
 those restrictions shall not extend, so far as to prevent removal 
 of property from one State to any other. The citizens being 
 inhabitants, provided, also, that no duties or restrictions shall be 
 laid by any State on the property of the United States, or ei- 
 ther of them. 
 
 Now, you see those Abolition principles adopted are in strict 
 opposition to the provisions of the Constitution, and would take 
 away the rights secured to each citizen of the Union, North 
 and South, and is usurping power prohibited expressly by words 
 
37 
 
 of the Constitution. The United States provides that no State 
 shall have power to pass an ex post facto law, a law imparing the 
 obligation of contracts. 
 
 Now, this would be passing an ex post facto law, a law 
 imparing obligation of contracts: and as the oath under 
 the authority of the Constitution of the United States is 
 that every one in office through the United States shall be 
 bound by oath, or affirmation, to support the Constitution 
 of the United States, notwithstanding any constitution or 
 law in any State to the contrary. Now, under the Aboli- 
 tion platform they assume, and have, by acts of legislation 
 and acts of majorities, emancipated and taken the African 
 property from their own citizens, and also passed acts, if the 
 citizens of other States moved into those States, their pro- 
 perty should be taken from them, and set free, when the law 
 of the Constitution provides that the citizens of each State 
 shall have free ingress and egress to and from any other 
 State, and "that no duties or restrictions shall be laid by any 
 State on the property of the United States or either of them. 
 Now, this shows these laws are all usurped, and right in op- 
 position to the laws of the Union. • The Constitution of the 
 United States also provides that the citizens are to. be se- 
 cured in their persons, papers, houses and effects, and shall 
 be preserved inviolably. It also provides that no law or 
 regulation shall be made by any State to discharge a ser- 
 vant or person bound to service due to the citizens of an- 
 other State, but if a servant or person bound to service 
 shall escape and flee to another State, they shall be bound 
 to deliver up such servant or person bound to service. It 
 also provides that no private property shall be taken for 
 public use without full compensation to the owner. It also 
 provides that the military power shall be in subordination 
 to the civil. It also provides that no State shall have power 
 to pass an ex post facto luw — a law imparing the obligation 
 of contracts. Now, those Abolitionists of the Northern 
 States, under the platform of Clay, Calhoun and Webster, 
 have set aside every provision named and created by the 
 
38 
 
 laws, right in opposition to the Constitution and the laws 
 established ; and if adopted as the standard of government 
 in place of laws adopted by the Constitution, it would de- 
 stroy every provision of the Constitution as completely as 
 if it had never existed, and place the power in the hands of 
 legislators, and acts of majorities, and they under no obli- 
 gation, only there own will, more than any king, prince or 
 potentate, as they have claimed, leaving the people without 
 any course but to obey. When under the authority of the 
 Constitution of the United States no power has been ex- 
 tended to any one in office, but delegated powers, which is 
 a business set apart for them to do. 
 
 Those delegated powers expressly named, having no power 
 but what was expressly named, and when they had dis- 
 charged the duty of the office which they were elected, or 
 appointed to do, to the extent of their delegated powers, 
 their power ceased, and under the Constitution of the United 
 States, they are restricted and prohibited by express words) 
 to have no power beyond those delegated. J^ow, let us see 
 if those powers claimed by the Abolition party would not 
 overthrow the government of the people as well as Mr. Clay, 
 and transfer the power from the people into the hands of the 
 legislators, and make a government of robbery, murder and 
 destruction of life, liberty and property, in place of* a gov- 
 ernment of protection to the citizens, persons, papers, houses 
 and effects, in place of supporting and defending us, accord- 
 ing to the joint agreement under the Articles of Confedera- 
 tion, against any attack made against us, or any of us, on ac- 
 count of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any pretence what- 
 ever, which would cover every thing that could be thought 
 of or named ; and as we own no property now but what was 
 owned at that time, and as we were bound to support and 
 defend no one but such as were members of the Union, and 
 this Union was to be perpetuated, and no State had power 
 to impair the obligations of contracts, this put it out of the 
 power of a State to make any change in the contracts. But 
 
39 
 
 let us see how far those Abolitionists have departed from 
 their contract, in accordance with the provisions of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 Now, it must be remembered that the people have created 
 all laws, and agreed to be governed by them, and to govern 
 all others by them. So far as Territories or the States ex- 
 tended — for all the States have to come into the Union under 
 the same agreement the rest did — it is not left to Congress 
 to say what terms a State shall come into the Union on. The 
 Constitution lixes the terms every State shall come into 
 the Union on, and every officer, from the constable to the 
 President, has to take the same oath the rest took, that is, to 
 support and defend the Constitution of the United States, 
 notwithstanding any constitution or law in any State to the 
 contrary. Now, it is necessary that the Constitution of 
 every State should correspond exactly with the Constitution 
 of the United States ; for if they were required to support 
 and defend two opposites, it would be impossible to do it, 
 and any one that would take such an oath would perjure 
 himself. So, according to the oath to be taken to support 
 and defend the Constitution of the United States, you must 
 disregard every oatli required by any one, or either of the 
 States or the United States, if it conflicts, or is in opposition 
 to the laws made by the Constitution of the United States. 
 Now, it appears that Webster's abolition party has done like 
 the Clay and Calhoun party. Every law they have created 
 has been right in opposition to the laws created by the Con- 
 stitution. In the first place, they were to protect every 
 member of the Union, on any account whatever. TTie Con- 
 stitution provides that no law or regulations shall be made 
 by any State to discharge a servant, or person bound to 
 service, due to a citizen of another State ; but if a servant 
 escapes from one State to another State, they shall be bound 
 to deliver up such servant, or persons bound to service. Does 
 not the Constitution of the United States provide that a cit- 
 izen shall be secured in their papers, houses and effects ? 
 Can a citizen be secured in anything, if the legislative 
 
40 
 
 bodies have power to take from them all those rights secured 
 to them by the Constitution ? The United States provides 
 that no private property shall be taken without full com- 
 pensation to the owner. It also provides that military law 
 shall be subordinate to the civil law. Now, by the military 
 law, by force of arms, they have murdered and robbed us 
 of our African property, right in opposition and contrary to 
 the laws of the Union; they denied us, of the Southern 
 States, and also the citizens of all the Northern States, the 
 right to buy or carry African property into any Territory, 
 when the Constitution of the United States provided that no 
 duties or restrictions shall be laid by any State on the 
 property of the United States, nor any particular State. 
 Yet they pretend they are members of the Union, when they 
 have violated and created laws right in opposition to those 
 created by the Union. They have made war against the 
 Southern States, and called on foreigners, and forced the 
 good people of the Northern States to come and assist them 
 murdering the people. There were many thousands of them 
 who had no desire to hurt us or deprive us of our rights, but 
 would have assisted us in protecting us in our rights, but for 
 the course pursued by the leaders of secession, which placed 
 every good Union man where he could not help us, for the 
 secession leaders had declared the people out of the Union, 
 and this gave the Abolition party excuse to call on the 
 people at the North to preserve the Union. So you see 
 they acted into one another's hands to get the people under 
 military power. The Abolition party pretended they were 
 preserving the Union, when they were doing every thing in 
 their power to destroy it. And now I wish all honest men 
 at the North, as well as the honest men of the South, to look 
 what they forced on the people of the South when they sur- 
 rendered up their arms, in order that we might be restored 
 to the Union in its original purity — and let us see what con- 
 dition they proposed to receive us into the Union on. They 
 pretended the object of the war was to bring the South 
 
41 
 
 back into the Union ; and let ns see what kind of oath they 
 require of the people of the South before they would adnii|; 
 them into the Union. The oath they propose was, that they 
 should support and defend the Constitution of the United 
 States, and the Union of the States thereunder ; and that 
 they should abide by, and faithfully support all laws and 
 proclamations, which have been made during the existing 
 rebellion, with reference to the emancipation of slaves. 
 Now, you see the oath they require to be taken is riglrt in 
 opposition to the oath required by the Constitution. There 
 is no power delegated to any one, to require any other oath 
 than to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
 States, in order to be admitted as a member of the Union ; 
 but you see they have added all acts of legislation and proc- 
 lamation of the President, when every act of legislation and 
 proclamations of the President was strictly in opposition to 
 the provisions of the Constitution, for the Constitution pro- 
 vided that no private property should be taken without full 
 compensation. This oath they require to be taken, corres- 
 ponds with the oath of the Calhoun platform of 1832, where 
 they required all officers to support and defend all acts of 
 the legislators, both what they had passed, and what they 
 might pass, without naming the Constitution at all ; but 
 the Abolitionists named the Constitution, and in addition, 
 required the people to support and defend the acts of legis- 
 lation and proclamations of the President, strictly in oppo- 
 sition to the Constitution. By this you can perceive whether 
 the Abolitionists or secessionists are acting in concert, for 
 both or either of these principles would utterly overthrow 
 the government of the people. Placed then under the 
 legislative power, and then under no obligation, only their 
 own will, when the Constitution has given them no powers 
 but delegated powers, with proper prohibitions and restric- 
 tions to confine their acts within the powers delegated. 
 
 It seems from this, from what I have shown, that those 
 two parties are acting in concert together, in order to get 
 
42 
 
 the people under military powers ; so that they can take all 
 our rights and liberty from usy and place us under the great- 
 est military despotism on earth. 
 
 Now in place of requiring the people of the South to take 
 the oath of the Constitution of the United States, as is re- 
 quired by the people's government, which is the only and 
 all the Union that does exist, they require the people of the 
 South to support and defend all acts passed by Congress 
 and proclamations of the President during the time of the 
 rebellion, and the emancipation of the African property, 
 and the Constitution of the United States. Now, it was 
 impossible to support and defend all the acts of legislators 
 and the proclamations of the President, and the Constitution 
 of the United States if the acts of Congress, and the proc- 
 lamations were right in opposition to the Constitution of the 
 United States; and if we take an oath to support and de- 
 fend two opposites, we cannot do it, and must perjure our- 
 selves. We were required to take an oath to support and 
 defend the emancipation of our own property, taken from 
 lis by the military power, when the Constitution of the 
 United States provides that the military power shall be in 
 subordination to the civil, and 'the civil law provides that 
 no private property shall be taken without full compensa- 
 tion to the owner. Now, has not this military power taken 
 the African property from their owners, and by military 
 power forced them to take an oath "to sustain them in their 
 robbery ? And it is right in opposition to the laws of the 
 Unfon. This is first forcing the people to take an oath to 
 support and defend the Union, ^nd forcing them to resist 
 the Constitution. But what I wish the people to notice par- 
 ticular is, this oath corresponds with the oath of the seces- 
 sionists, under the ordinance of 1832, where they required 
 every one in office to take an oath to defend whatever the 
 Legislatures had passed, or might pass, to the full extent 
 and true meaning of the same. Now, by this oath, the 
 emancipator is required to support all acts the Legislatures 
 
43 
 
 p^, and all proclamations of the President, when, at the 
 same time, I have shown that every act passed by the Legis- 
 latures, and all proclamations made by President Lincoln, 
 are utterly unconstitutional, and right in opposition to the 
 provision of it, and assuming all powers by the legislators 
 that any king, prince or potentate ever did on earth. Now, 
 it will be seen by Webster's Abolition platform that it is 
 their object to transfer all power from the people to the 
 legislators , and the Abolitionists have advanced a little fur- 
 ther than the secessionists, by includiag the proclamation of 
 the President, Now, the constitutional court has already 
 decided, in the Dred Scott case, that Africans were property, 
 and as much entitled to protection, all over the United 
 States, as any other property. Now, if acts of majorities 
 and proclamations of the President have the power to take 
 away one part of our property, what is to hinder them to 
 take all? and could the citi-zens be secure in anything? 
 What would become of that portion of the Constitution 
 which provides that the citizens are to be secure in their 
 person, papers, houses and effects, and that security to be 
 
 preserved inviolably ? 
 
 Now, what greater trespasses can be committed against the 
 Union than has been committed by the present abolition admin- 
 istration, against the people, South and Nortti ? For they have 
 caused, by their unconstitutional acts, as well as the secession 
 leaders, all the destruction of life, liberty and property that has 
 been done in the United States. It is useless for them to say 
 the South brought on the war, by going out of the Union. 
 They went out of the Union first. In the first place, they for- 
 feited every obligation under the Union, entered into, as I have 
 already shown, to the people of the South. If there is an obli- 
 gation entered into between the people, both North and South, 
 that abolition parties have not failed to comply with, and for- 
 feited their agreement with the balance of the. members of the 
 Union, I do not know Avhat one of them it is, and if there is one 
 they have complied with, I do wish some one would inform me. 
 And the next question is, I will ask what one of the obligations 
 entered into under the Constitution of the United States, that a 
 
44 
 
 Southron has failed to comply with to the North. I challenge 
 the world for an answer — have not the Abolitionists ? for I will 
 charge the blame on no one else. Have they not given just 
 reasons for the South to separate from the Northern States ? 
 They run the Africans over to the Southern States and sold 
 them ; shortly after tried to rob and take them from their own- 
 ers, without compensation. Is such conduct in accordance with 
 their obligation ? I write these things that the people may see 
 and know the truth — not in support of secession, for no man on 
 earth can be more opposed to the Southern secession than I am. 
 The Union is what I want to be restored to its original purity, 
 and every one of the United States to comply with all the obli- 
 gations entered into, to protect and defend each other against 
 all attacks made against us, or any of us, on any account what- 
 ever, and then love and unity would exist. We never could 
 be made to love each other by murdering and killing each other, 
 and in the situation all of us are in, there is great danger, for if 
 we were to get into a war with some other strong government) 
 the South might join in with that poAver and destroy every 
 thing the North has, and bring ourselves under a foreign power. 
 I speak this not that I know anything, but it is human nature. 
 It is certainly better to be friends than enemies, and the only 
 way to be friends and keep friendship, is to do right with each 
 other. So far as the secession of South Carolina was concerned, 
 I do not consider it was doing any injury to the North. The 
 injury done was entirely to the South — they were trying to get 
 the people's government of the South destroyed, and bring the 
 people of the South under the greatest military despotism like 
 the abolition party, in trying to get the North and South both 
 in, and the secessionists helping them. Now, in my showing 
 that the South had done the North no harm, it was not to jus- 
 tify a course pursued, for if the South had done what they 
 ought to have done, and what I wanted them to do, was to 
 carry their case into the Court of the United States, and have 
 our rights acknowledged there, and if the Abolitionists had 
 refused to submit to the decision of the United States Court* 
 they would be guilty of treason, and if the Courts had called on 
 the President to execute the laws, and if he would refuse, he 
 
45 
 
 could be broke of his commission ; and if he aided or assisted 
 in the resistance of the decision of the Courts, he would be 
 guilty of treason ; then all the good Union men at the North 
 would have assisted in protecting the South, but that course 
 would have settled all those party combinations and prevented 
 them from getting the people under the military power. Now, 
 this is the course I have tried to show was pursued by the 
 Webster abolition party, and if established as a standard of 
 government, and which this present administration is carrying 
 out, it would destroy the constitutional rights of the people as 
 completely as if they never had a right, being the same kind of 
 government offered the people by the separate State Rights 
 doctrine, would do if their principles were carried out, and 
 as I will now attempt more fully to show what kind of a gov- 
 ernment they intend to establish over the people when they get 
 our government destroyed, and themselves enthroned under 
 the military power, for they have 'not got the people as fully 
 under them as they intend, and of this I think I can convince any 
 sane man, when I compare Mr. Calhoun's platform with Clay's 
 and Webster's. 
 
 I will now commence showing Calhoun's platform of princi- 
 ples, which wUl correspond very well with Clay and Webster's, 
 in taking the power all from the people, and places a power in 
 the legislators ; also, in destroying all the provisions of the Con- 
 stitution, as Clay's party and Webster's has done. Let us see 
 what Mr. Calhoun has to perform to finish the destruction of 
 the people's government, under authority of the Constitution. 
 His platform was this : that every State was a separate sotc- 
 reign State, had a right to decide for themselves, choose their 
 own mode and measure of defence, and they were under no ob- 
 ligation, only their own will ; neither should they suffer them- 
 .selves to be under any other. That they have the right to de- 
 cide for themselves, and choose their own mode and measure 
 and defence. And there was no lawful arbiter could be found 
 .sufficiently impartial to decide against the State ; therefore, 
 none was provided. Now, to prove that is false, the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States provides that the judicial court of the 
 United States shall extend to all cases of law and equity, aris- 
 
46 
 
 ing under the Constitution of the United States, to all cases in 
 whi.ch the United States shall be a party. Two or more States, 
 or different States, and in all cases where a State shall be a 
 party, it shall have the original jurisdiction. So you see the 
 first declaration has not the shadow of authority, and, if adopt- 
 ed, would destroy every part of power of the people's govern- 
 ment. If we had no court and jury we would have no govern- 
 ment. But let us see who he applies the word State to. They 
 ask the question in their address, accompanying the ordinance 
 of 1832, in it, Who can alter and destroy the government? Is 
 it the States, or is it the people ? It will be seen they make 
 the States one party, and the people another. The address an- 
 swered the question itself. It says : The States, as States, rati- 
 fied the compact. The people of the United States had no 
 agency in forming the government ; that there is not now, nor 
 never has been, such a political body as the people of the 
 United States. That the extent of the power does not depend 
 on the people of the United States, but upon the State Legis- 
 latures. They have the absolute control over the lives, liberty 
 and property of the people ; the clear right to declare the ex- 
 tent of their obligation, and, when once declared, the people 
 had no course but to obey. And if they refused obedience so 
 as to bring them imder the displeasure of their only and laAvful 
 sovereigns, and within the severe pains and penalties of the 
 the legislators, in their high and sovereign power, will not fail 
 to provide for their self-defence, the faults and folly will be 
 their own. 
 
 NoAV, the defence put up in behalf of all who claim the right 
 of sovereignty, the penalty is death, if you speak against any 
 act they pass, or resist it in any manner whatever. Now, they 
 brought up a bill defining what should be considered treason 
 against the State, which was, if any one spoke against any act 
 passed by the legislators, or resisted it in any manner whatever, 
 the penalty should be death, without the benefit of the clergy, 
 which means, without any chance of being reprieved. This bill 
 was not passed. I could give the reasons why, but I think it is 
 not necessary, at present. They also provided that no one 
 should hold an office of profit or trust, civil or military, mem- 
 
ber of the Legislature excepted, unless they would take an oath 
 well and truly, to obey, execute and enforce the ordinance, and 
 whatever every act the legislators passed, to the full extent and 
 true meaning of the same. They also provided that in no case 
 wherein was drawn in question the authority of the ordinance, 
 or in any act in pursuance of the same, no judge or jury should 
 be permitted to set on the trial unless they should first take an 
 oath that they would well and truly obey, execute, impose the 
 ordinance, and whatever act the legislators shall pass in pur- 
 suance of the same. They further provided, that in no case 
 wherein was drawn in question the ordinance or any act passed 
 by the legislators, in pursuance of the same, no appeal, or a 
 copy of appeal, should be taken to the Supreme Court of the 
 United States ; and if any one attemj^ted to take an appeal, or 
 copy of an appeal, the person attempting to take an appeal, or 
 copy of an appeal, should be dealt with for contempt of the 
 court. They provided, also, that there should be no appeal 
 from the decision, of a court-martial. Now, when there is no 
 appeal from any court, that would, inevitably, place it above all 
 other courts. Now, any one of those provisions adopted by 
 the ordinance, and the address accompanying the ordinance, is 
 strictly against the principles of the Constitution of the people, 
 under those fixed, established principles that they all agreed to be 
 governed by themselves, and govern others by. For theConsti- 
 tution provides that the military powers shall be in subordina- 
 tion to the civil power. 
 
 It will be seen that the oath required by the secessionists v>'as 
 to support I and defend all acts the legislators passed, instead of 
 the Constitution of the United States. It is in strict accord- 
 ance with the oath required to be taken by the abolition ad- 
 ministration, and what is very astonishing, I never have heard 
 one of the head secessionists find any fault to the oath, but 
 takes it freely, and encourages all others to take it, without 
 finding any fault to it whatever. Now, both the abolitionist 
 and secessionist pretend they are supporting and defending the 
 people's government in their secured rights under the Constitu- 
 tion. But, do not actions speak louder than words ? Both 
 those parties claimed to be over the people, and transferred to 
 
48 
 
 the legislators and the proclamations of the President as great 
 power as has ever been claimed over any people upon earth, in 
 ancient or modern times. Now, if there is no appeal from the 
 military, it would establish the military above all other laws, 
 and the legislators having power to make any law they pleased, 
 and being under no obligation, only their own will, they could 
 place the punishment of any kind they thought fit, to be tried by 
 the military court, and as in no case wherein was drawn in ques- 
 tion the ordinance, or any act the legislators would pass, the 
 same might be tried without being plead, and that there shall 
 be no appeal had in the case, so that if a citizen was to dispute 
 any act the legislators passed, or the authority of the ordinance, 
 or if some malicious person charged him falsely, he was not al- 
 lowed to put the trial off, until he could obtain witnesses to 
 prove his innocence ; and they could try him without his "Case 
 being plead, and as the definition of treason was that if they 
 spoke against any acts passed by the legislators, or resisted it 
 in any manner whatever,' the penalty was death, without any 
 chance of being reprieved ; and the secession party also pro- 
 vided that in no case wherein was drawn in question the au- 
 thority of the ordinance, or any act passed by the legislators in 
 pursuance of the same, no judge nor jury shall be permitted to 
 set on the trials, unless they shall first take an oath, well and 
 truly to obey, execute and enforce the ordinance, and whatever 
 acts the legislators pass, to the full extent and true meaning of 
 the same. They provided, also, that the legislators should have 
 power to prescribe to ofticers and citizens, from time to time, 
 what oath of allegiance they shall take, and define what should 
 constitute treason against States; and also the punishment an- 
 nexed to treason. Now, all those provisions were adopted, and 
 many others to secure the power of the people, under the au- 
 thority of the Legislature, that they had attempted to do under 
 the ordinance of 1832, and as I have shown. They knew well 
 what principles to adopt to secure the life, liberty and property 
 in themselves, for the law was, if you spoke against them, or 
 resisted them in any manner whate-ver, the penalty was death, 
 without any chance of being reprieved; and no judge or jury 
 was permitted to set on the trial without first being sworn to 
 
- 49 
 
 decide in favor of them, and against citizens, they having power 
 to make any laws they pleased, and they would have placed all 
 cases in military courts, and enforce all the laws under military 
 courts as the Abolition administration is doing at this time. 
 Now, it will be seen, the secessionists first laid down the plat- 
 form, and the Abolitionists adopted it ; but the Abolitionists 
 say the people of the Southern States went out of the Union. 
 President Johnson says they never were out of the Union. I 
 say the same. 
 
 For in accordance with the pirovision of the Constitution, they 
 had no power to go out, for the Constitution provides that no 
 State shall ever have power to pass an ex post facto law — a law 
 imparing the obligation of contracts. Now, if a State was to 
 go out of the Union it would both be passing s^n ex post facto 
 law, and a law imparing the obligation of contracts, for it would 
 impair every contract that existed between ourselves and the 
 other States, so she could not go out legally. There is another 
 reason that a State could not go out of the Union legally. The 
 Constitution of the United States, being a fixed, and established 
 set of principles, that the people of all the States declared by 
 them to be the supreme law of the land, that they all agreed to 
 be governed by, and to govern all others by, and not by acts of 
 majorities or legislators, and declared that the Constitution 
 should be the supreme law of the land, and that every one in 
 oflSce, throughout the United States, should be bound by oath, 
 or aflSrraation, to support and defend the Constitution of the 
 United States, notwithstanding any constitution or law in any 
 State to the contrary, and that the Union shall be perpetual. 
 And imder those fixed, established set of principles they ex- 
 tended no authority to any one in office, from the constable to 
 the President, but delegated powers. Now, a delegated power 
 is not sovereign power, but a business set apart for every one 
 to do, who may be elected or appointed into office ; and it is 
 not left to his own will whether he will discharge the duty of 
 the office which he is elected or appointed to do, but he is 
 sworn that he will discharge the duty of the office for which he 
 is elected or appointed to do, and that he will support and de- 
 fend the Constitution of the United States, notwithstanding 
 ■ 4 
 
50 
 
 any constitution or law in any State to the contrary. Now, 
 that is the oaih required to be taken by the Constitution of the 
 United States, and when any one takes an oath to support and 
 defend it, it inchides every Avord in the Constitution, not acts 
 of legislatures, nor majorities, nor proclamations of the Presi- 
 dent, unless it is in accordance with the Constitution of the 
 United States. But whenever an officer has discharged the 
 duty of the office for which he was elected or appointed, his 
 power ceases to go any further ; and if he does act beyond del- 
 egated power, his acts are binding on no one, but if such officers 
 should insist that they had the right to enforce such acts on the 
 citizens, or any one, the citizen has the right to refuse to obey 
 such acts, and have the case carried to the Court of the United 
 States, and show that no such power was delegated to create 
 such laws ; and if no such power ever had been delegated, the 
 Court would be bound to pronounce such acts null and void, 
 and no law. 
 
 And herein lies the great security of the life, liberty and 
 property, and the persons, paj^ers, houses and effects, and not 
 the elective franchise. But the elective franchise is good in its 
 place, as I will show hereafter. But the great security for our 
 rights is, that we have extended no power to any one in office, 
 from the constable to the President, but what is expressly 
 named. Every provision in the Constitution is a law of protec- 
 tion against the acts of wrongs that might be attempted by our 
 agents. Now, every power delegated to Congress is expressly 
 named, that is, set apart for them to do, and after naming all 
 the business set apart for them to legislate upon, the Constitu- 
 tion then provides first, that Congress shall have power to make 
 all laws necessary and proper to carry out the foregoing law s 
 into power. Now, it must be necessary and proper that a law 
 should be made, before they have power to make any law. The 
 Constitution of the United States provides that the power not 
 delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor pro- 
 hibited by it to the States, is reserved to States respectively, 
 or the people. This shows clearly that Congress has no power 
 but what is expressly delegated, and the States have no powers 
 that they are prohibited from haying, and as the Constitution 
 
51 
 
 of the United States provides that no State should ever have 
 power to- pass an ex post facto law, nor law imparing the obliga- 
 tions of contracts. 
 
 Now, this provision of the Constitution secures and confines 
 the action of all the States within the bounds of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, so that they cannot impair any agree- 
 ment or contract existing under the Constitution of the United 
 States ; and as Congress possesses no power but what is ex- 
 pressly delegated, it confines their acts within the bounds of the 
 Constitution of the United States ; and no act of either of those 
 two legislations, outside of their delegated authority, is binding 
 on any officer or citizen of the United States, nor no law, as I 
 have shown, but is uttez'ly null and void. But in order to make 
 it legally null and void, it would be necessary to have the case 
 before the legal arbiter, appointed by the constitutional court, 
 who is invested with power to decide in all cases of law and 
 equity, arising imder the Constitution ; and this is the course I 
 recommend to all the citizens, North and South, to pursue in 
 time to come. For you see what dreadful destruction of life, 
 liberty and property has been brought on by both North and 
 South, and has been forced upon us by the illegal proceedings 
 and unconstitutional proceedings of both parties, and by their 
 intrigues got the people under military power, and compelled 
 us to rob, kill, murder and destroy each other, like we were 
 heathens, when we had a plain, simple remedy to settle all dis- 
 putes by law. Look at the debi^ that hangs over us, and by 
 military proceedings, all over the Southern States, is still in- 
 creasing the debt, pretending it was preventing the Southern 
 States from insurrection, and to keep them in the Union. My- 
 self and the President asserts they never have been out of the 
 Union. I will admit that all the acts of the secessionists and 
 the Clay party, and abolition administration, was all out of the 
 Union. But the territorial boundary, and all the true Union 
 men who were, and are willing to conform themselves to all the 
 obligations entered into under the Union, cannot be considered 
 out of the Union, and each man, South and North, had no legaj 
 right to secede from the Union, nor put others out. But let us 
 see what position the gecessionists occupied, to go out and drag 
 
52 
 
 every one out with themselves, and see whether they had any 
 authority, or the Abolitionists either, and how they both acted 
 tt) get the people under railitaiy power. In the first place, the 
 people of the United States divided their government in two 
 legislative departments, but each of those departments have 
 their business set apart, what they shall legislate upon. The 
 Legislature of a State is not responsible to Congress for any act 
 they j)ass, neither is Congress responsible for any act they pass, 
 to the State, but they must be responsible to some one ; and 
 let us see who that is, and if we want to know who it is that 
 they are to be responsible to, we must see who created them. 
 It was the people created them, and also the Constitution of the 
 United States, and bound all of them by oath, or affirmation, to 
 support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not- 
 withstanding any constitution or law in any State to the con- 
 trary. Now, the people created the Constitution and the 
 Legislatures, and they are accountable to the people, and no 
 one else, and not accountable to one another. Each of them 
 have their business set apart to do, and neither of them has 
 power to legislate on the business set apart for the other to do. 
 Congress has power delegated to legislate on all the national 
 aiFairs, but with proper prohibitions and restrictions to their 
 limited power. Such as no tax nor duty shall be laid on any 
 article exported from any State ; no article shall enter free in 
 one port and pay duties in another ; duties shall be uniform 
 throughout the United States.'" Then the Legislatures of the 
 States — their business set apart to do — are to legislate on all 
 the domestic affairs of the States, with proper prohibitions and 
 restrictions, to keap them within the proper bounds of their 
 legislation. Such as no State shall enter into any treaty or com- 
 pact with another State, nor with a foreign power, and many 
 other prohibitions and restrictions, so as to confine the State 
 legislation within its legislation, set apart for them to legislate 
 on. And this is one of the great beauties of our government ; 
 for by dividing the legislations into two departments, it dividoa 
 .legislation in such manner as it does not fix too much burden 
 on any one set of legislators. The legislation can be done in 
 harmony and security. The people hare not extended any 
 
53 
 
 power to any one in office, but delegated powers, and in those 
 delegated powers they have given no power to take even the 
 vahie of a pin from the people, as I have shown in the first part 
 of this work. Now, under these circumstances, how is it possible 
 for a State to go out of the Union ? But let us see what sort 
 of a plan the secessionists of South Carolina assumed, to have 
 the right to go o\it of thp Union, and how they acted. They 
 pretended that they had the right to call a convention and de- 
 cide for themselves, and choose their own mode and measure of 
 redress, and be under no obligation only their own will, not- 
 withstanding the Constitution of the United States provided 
 that no State should have power to pass an ex post facto law — a 
 law imparing the obligation of contracts, and that the Union 
 should be perpetual. Now let us see what power is delegated 
 to a State Convention. The power delegated to a State Con- 
 vention is, they have power to propose amendments to the 
 Constitution of their own State, but they have no power to 
 make any amendment, nor do any other act that would be 
 binding on any one. It requires the consent of two-thirds of 
 both Houses to give their consent, but they must advertise 
 what they propose, three months previous to the election of 
 another set of legislators, and it has to be read three times, on 
 three separate days, and agreed to in their first session by two- 
 thirds of both Houses. Then, and not until then, it becomes a 
 part of the Constitution of the State. Now, that is all the 
 power that is delegated to the convention of a State. But, let 
 us see how this mob convention in South Carolina did, when a 
 few secessionists elected them, and they went down to Colum- 
 bia. They assumed to be judges. They decided by themselves, 
 and for themselves, against the General Government, and de- 
 cided between a people and their own government. They pro- 
 nounced the people out of their own government, but, at the 
 same time, adopted the original Constitution of the United 
 States as the standard of government ; neither did the people 
 of the Southern States ever want any other ^government than 
 the government under the Constitution of the United States ; 
 neither do they want any other rights than is secured to them 
 by the Constitution of the United States ; and when they were 
 
54 
 
 called on by the leaders of secession to organize under military 
 organization, it was to defend their homes, their firesides and 
 families against the Abolition raiders, who were forming mili- 
 tary bands to mm-der and rob, and utterly destroy us, when, at 
 the same time, they were bound by the articles of the Union 
 that they would support and defend every one who was a mem- 
 ber of the Union against all attacks, made against us, or any of us, 
 on account of religion, soverignty, trade, or any other pretence 
 whatever. This being the case, how could the people be out of 
 the Union ? "We have the right to organize ourselves, to pro- 
 tect ourselves against illegal bands of robbers, under the au- 
 thority of the Constitution, and those who pronounced the peo- 
 ple of the Southern States out of the Union, had no power to 
 do so, nor the States either ; so, as far as the people of the South- 
 ern States are concerned, they never have had any desire, nor 
 could go out, unless they would commit treason. Now, I think, 
 I have shown very clearly that the President and myself are 
 right, when we say that none of the States were out of the 
 Union ; because, no one had power to put us out, nor had we 
 any legal authority to go out ourselves. For the Constitution 
 provided that the Union should be perpetual. If there was but 
 one loyal citizen in a State, who was a member of the Union, 
 every citizen in the United States, in accordance with the 
 agreement, under the Union, is bound to suj^port and defend 
 him in every right secured to each other. 
 
 But how does the Abolition party stand, in that respect, to 
 the people of the South, under Mr. Lincoln's administration, 
 when the secessionists could have no other power in a State 
 Convention than to propose amendments, but illegally assumed 
 the powers of judges to decide against the General Govern- 
 ment, and to decide between the people and their own govern- 
 ment, and pronounce them out of their government, and cre- 
 ated a new government, and forced the people, under military 
 powers, as I have formerly shown ? Now, let us see how Lin- 
 coln did. Mr. Lincoln assumes to be a judge, like the seces- 
 sionists. He decided that South Carolina was out of the Union. 
 He also declared war against South Carolina, and said he wo«Id 
 whip South Carolina back into the Union. Now, Mr. Lincoln 
 
55 
 
 had just about the same right to become a judge to decide 
 whether South Carolina was, or was not out of the Union as 
 the secessionists had to do what they did, or to declare war 
 either. For the Constitution of the United States provides 
 that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to 
 all cases of law and equity arising under the Constitution of 
 the United States, in all cases where the United States was a 
 party — two or more States — and in all cases where a State was 
 a party, the United States Courts would have the original ju- 
 risdiction. 
 
 Now, it will be seen that, Mr. Lincoln assumed the place of 
 the Judicial Court, and decided against South Carolina by him- 
 self, without any court and jury, just like the secessionists did, 
 each one of those parties usurping powers not delegated, but 
 prohibited each party, in place of calling the courts to their as- 
 sistance, called for military power, and in this way, by false re- 
 presentation, succeeded in getting a sufficient military power to 
 force the whole of the United States to come under their mili- 
 tary power. Now, all those things look very much like a con- 
 certed plan between them to get the people under military 
 power. Now, let us see, in the next j)lace, and examine how 
 far Mr. Lincoln's authority extended towards declaring war 
 against South Carolina. Now, I wish the reader of this work 
 to always bear in mind, that no power has been extended to 
 any one in office, from the constable to the President, but del- 
 egated powers ; and there is no power given to the President 
 to judge or decide any case whatever, and it will be seen that 
 his judgment, as far as it went, was a perfect nullity, and with- 
 out any legal authority, just like the convention of the seces- 
 sionists. Now let us see what the Constitution of the United 
 States says in regard to declaring war. The Constitution of 
 the United States gives Congress power to declare war and 
 make peace between us and foreign powers, but it does not 
 give Congress power to declare war against a citizen of the 
 United States, nor against a State, because there is a law pro- 
 vided to settle all cases of law and equity arising under the 
 Constitution ; and in all cases where a State was a party, the 
 United States Court had the original jurisdiction. It will be 
 
56 
 
 seen that Lincoln or Congress had no right to declare war, 
 unless the case had been first brought before the United States 
 Court, and fairly tried, and if the courts had decided against 
 the proceedings of the secessionists, which I have no doubt 
 they would, and if the secession party had resisted, by the force 
 of arms, it would then have amounted to an insurrection ; then 
 Congress would have had a right to put down such an insurrec- 
 tion. Now, this is the way the people have been forced under 
 these two great leaders of mobs — the one pretending their 
 object was to preserve the Union, and the other that they were 
 fighting for their liberty and independence, when both parties, 
 as I have before shown, were destroying every part of those 
 provisions which gave and secured to the people every right, 
 liberty and protection any honest man could desire, and en- 
 throning themselves with more power than any King, Prince 
 or Potentate possesses on earth. And this is what those two 
 parties have been after all the while ; and they knew that they 
 could not destroy the people's government without dividing 
 the people into two parties, nor take their liberty from them, 
 unless they got them under military power. To show you the 
 wisdom of those two parties, neither of them proceeded against 
 each other by law. Now, in the eye of the law, every one is 
 to be presumed honest until proved guilty before a court and 
 jury. Now, their proceedings were never brought before a 
 court and jury, neither has the proceedings of the Abolitionists, 
 which would place those parties both as mobs. Now, let us 
 see if the Al^olitionists are not as far out of the Union as the 
 South could get. We agreed to support and defend each other 
 against attacks made against us, or any of us, on account of 
 religion, trade or any other pretence whatever, which covered 
 every thing that could be thought of or named. Have the 
 Abolitionists complied with that agreement? They did not. 
 The citizens of each State were to have free ingress and eoress 
 to and from any other State, and no duties or restrictions were 
 to be laid by any State on the property of the United States, 
 or either of them. Did the Abolitionists ever comply with 
 that part of the Union ? They did not. The citizens of each 
 State were to be secure in their persons, houses and effects 
 
57 
 
 Did they assist any of the citizens of the Southern States in that 
 security or protection? They did not. The Constitution of 
 the United States provides that no law or regulation shall be 
 made by any State to discharge a servant, or person bound to 
 service, due to a citizen of another State ; but if a servant, or 
 person bound to service, shall escape or flee to another State, 
 they shall be bound to deliver up such servant, or person bound 
 to service. Have the Abolitionists complied with that part of 
 the Union ? They have not. Does not the Constitution of the 
 United States provide that no private property shall be taken 
 for public use, without full compensation to the owner ? Have 
 the Abolitionists complied with that part of the Union ? They 
 have not. Does not the same Constitution provide that the 
 military power shall be surbordinate to the civil ? Have they 
 complied with that part of the Union ? Have they not used 
 the military power in robbing, murdering, taking away and 
 destroying all our property, and prohibiting us from the com- 
 merce of the whole world? Now, this military power was 
 introduced for the protection of every right, liberty and prop- 
 erty, against the attacks of all foreign powers and domestic 
 violence. But I ask for what purpose those Abolitionists use 
 this military power ? .They have dragged many honest men 
 from their homes and families, both North and South ! I do 
 not blame the people on either side, but I blame the leaders on 
 both sides. 
 
 How many poor unfortuaate women have lost their hus- 
 bands, and how many parents have lost their sons, who 
 might have been, if spared,\a help and stay to them in their 
 old age ? And all to gratify the Abolitionists in robbing 
 the people of the South of their African property, and pre- 
 tending they were preserving the Union, which I have 
 shown, in every act they have passed, is destroying every 
 part of the Union, just like the secessionists have been do- 
 ing. Now, this African property was tried in the Dred 
 Scott case, and decided that they were property, and as 
 much entitled to protection as any other property in the 
 United States. H£\,ve thej complied with the decision of 
 
58 
 
 that Court? Thej have not. But their acts, in this case, 
 are like the rest of their acts of Abolitionism.^ They are 
 placing all the power in the Legislatures, and leaving no 
 power in the people. For if we establish power as the Ab- 
 olitionists have attempted, under the name of amendment, 
 to take away one part of our property, what is to hinder 
 them to take all the property ? as the Secessionists Conven- 
 tion declared they had the right to do. And under their 
 regulations with the military and legislative power, they 
 claim neither North or South have any security for life, lib- 
 erty or property. Look what an immense debt they have 
 created over us, and are still increasing ! A heavy debt by 
 keeping a standing array ! Our President desires the troops 
 dispersed, and, I believe, he is honest, and desires to restore 
 the Union to the people in its original purity ; and, I think, 
 will do it, if the people will help him. South and North 
 he deserves great praise for what he has done in part. He 
 brought the war to a close, and is trying to do what he can, 
 but the great ignorance of the people, in regard to the plan 
 of government, gives the President trouble, and is at great 
 disadvantage, but to teach them what is their true interest 
 North and South. 
 
 I have written this work in order to assist him in get- 
 ting the North and South to throw away those disunion 
 parties, and all fall back under the Constitution in its 
 original purity. Because you see every principle adopted 
 by. Clay, Calhoun and "Webster, all run into the same 
 channel to destroy all the provisions of the Constitutions, 
 both of the States, and the Constitution of the United 
 States, which is the people's government, and enthrone 
 all powers over the people, under the control of the 
 Legislatures, both of the States, and of the United States, 
 as ever has existed under any king, prince or potentate, 
 heathen not excepted, and they to be under no obligation, 
 only their own will, more than any king, prince or poten- 
 tate ; nor neither should they suffer themselves, under any 
 
59 
 
 other obligation. Now. this is their own language, which 
 proves that I have made no false charge against thein. l^ow, 
 those three men, Clay, Calhoun and Webster, were all law- 
 yers, and men of great intellect. How is it possible that 
 they could have overlooked the true principles of the Con- 
 stitution and adopted principles so opposite to those of the 
 Constitution, as I have described, unless they had sonie 
 other object in view to what they professed to the people? 
 And let ns look somewhat further into their principles, and 
 see what kind of government their principles would natu- 
 rally force us under, for you see, under the Calhoun plat- 
 form, under the ordinance of 1832, they would not admit of 
 any allegiance to any other than the State, and those 
 the State transferred their allegiance to. Kow, from this 
 remark, it would seem that this was not the kind of govern- 
 ment they intended to remain under, or they would not 
 have been so careful to have provided for a transfer.. Now, 
 let us look and see what kind of e"overnment it could make, 
 in accordance with Mr. Calhoun's platform. Each State 
 was to be a separate State, under no obligation, only their 
 own will, more than any king, prince, or potentate, neither 
 should they suffer themselves under any other, and they ap- 
 plied the word State to mean the Legislatures. They asked 
 the question, who created, and who can destroy the govern- 
 ment? Is it the States or the people? They answer the 
 question in the address accompanying the ordinances them- 
 selves. The States, they say, ratified the compact. The 
 people of the United States had no agency in tile formation 
 of the government. That there is not now, nor has there 
 ever been, such a political body as the people of the United 
 States. The extent of the power does not depend on the 
 people, but upon the State Legislatures ; that they have the 
 absolute control over both the lives, liberty and property of 
 the people ; that they have the clear right to declare the ex- 
 tent of their oblig4ion, and, when once declared, the people 
 had no course but to obey. But if they refuse obedience, 
 
60 
 
 so as to bring themselves under the severe pains and penal- 
 ties, by which their high and sovereign power, the Legisla- 
 ture, will not fail to provide foi their self-defence. The fault 
 and folly will be their own. Each State has a right to de- 
 cide for herself, and choose her own mode and measure of 
 defence ; and that there could not be found any lawful arbi- 
 ter sufficiently impartial enough to decide against them. 
 Therefore, there was none provided. Now, you will see 
 this is the power claimed by Mr. Calhoun's platform, for the 
 Legislatures of each State. Now, let us carry out Mr. Cal- 
 houn's platform, and see what kind of a government it will 
 make, and perhaps we can see what those three parties have 
 been after all tliis time. We will, in the first place, estab- 
 lish all the powers in the hands of the Legislatures, contend- 
 ed for, under the Calhoun platform, and we will say each 
 State is a separate, sovereign State, with all the powers over 
 the people claimed, and they under no obligation, only their 
 own will, with all the powers claimed, this would establish 
 as many separate governments as there were States in the 
 United States, all under no obligation, only their own will. 
 Now, if they were under no obligations than their own will, 
 there could not be any agreement existing between those 
 different governments and if no agreement existed, no 
 Union could exist ; so, you see, Calhoun's platform of gov- 
 ernment destroys the people's government out of existence 
 as completely as if it never had existed, and placed us under 
 the form of government that all heathens act under. Every 
 heathen chieftain controls a certain territorial boundary, and 
 is under no other obligation, than his own will ; and all 
 heathens are controlled by self-gratification. The}^ care not 
 how much others may sufi'er, so that they are gratified. We 
 will establish Mr. Calhoun's States Eight sovereignty, and 
 examine it a little further. We will suppose that Georgia 
 and South Carolina are two separate governments, under no 
 obligation, only their own will, and will not suffer them- 
 selves to be under any other; and we* will suppose, which 
 
61 
 
 will be a very reasonable supposition, that a parcel of rogues 
 shall settle on both sides of Savannah river, and cross the 
 river and steal horses, or any other property ; the only way 
 we would have to get any redress for the wrongs done us 
 would be to apply to the Legislature of the State to call on 
 the government of Georgia for redress, for the wrongs done ; 
 but we would, in the first place, have to obtain positive 
 proof that it was a citizen of Georgia that had committed 
 the trespass, whether stealing, murder, or robbery, you 
 would, perhaps, have to take with you friends to obtain that 
 fact ; but while you were attempting to obtain those facts, 
 so as to be prepared to give satisfactory proof that it was a 
 citizen of Georgia had done you the injury complained of, 
 they might privately tell you, or your friends, who went 
 with you, or both ; but we will suppose you succeed in get- 
 ting all the proof necessary to satisfy those separate States 
 Rights sovereigns, that you are claiming but what is right, 
 and they apply to the government of Georgia to redress the 
 wrongs done by a citizen of Georgia, to a citizen of the 
 sovereign State of South Carolina. Suppose the govern- 
 ment of Georgia sends back word we are under no obliga- 
 tion than our own will, we are not bound to protect you 
 against theft and robbery or murder. Protect yourselves. 
 What kind of a government is this they are trying to bring 
 us under ? What kind of security could the people have 
 under such a government ? For has South Carolina sufficient 
 military power to force Georgia to respect our rights ? Do 
 the people not see what destruction of life, liberty and 
 property would occur under such a gov(3rnment as that ? 
 But we would be in the very same fix that the heathen gov- 
 ernments are, and soon destroy each other, and in all proba- 
 bility become heathens ourselves, under such a form of gov- 
 ernment. But all those difficulties were fixed for, to bring 
 us under the kind of government they intended to bring the 
 people under, by those three parties, or I am mistaken ; if 
 I am, I wish to be undeceived. But let us look a little fur- 
 
62 
 
 tlier, and as the address accompanying the ordinance of 1832, 
 provides that thej would not admit ot any allegiance but to 
 the Legislatures, and those they transferred their allegiance 
 to. Let us see what kind of a government they are making, 
 that will make it necessary to make a transfer of allegiance 
 from the State. We will go on and establish as many gov- 
 ernments in the United States as there are States, all under 
 no obligation only their own ^^ill. Let us see hoT/ com- 
 merce is to be extended to all those different governments if 
 South Carolina was acknowledged as a separate, independent 
 government. She could enter into treaties and compacts with 
 other governments, to carry on commerce with other na- 
 tions, because she has ports to send goods out and receive 
 goods in, but there is Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, 
 Missouri, and all the back States — they could not enter into 
 any treaty or compact with any other government, for they 
 had no ports to send goods out nor receive goods in. 
 Therefore, they could not enter into commerce with any 
 other government. And all the other States preserved the 
 principles laid down by Mr. Calhoun, to be under no obli- 
 gations only their own will, neither should they suffer them- 
 selves to be under any other. Kow, let us see how this de- 
 fect can be remedied so as to extend commerce to all those 
 different States. There are only three ways that I know of? 
 by which commerce is extended between different govern- 
 ments. One is under the authority of Kings, another is an 
 Emperor, and the third is under the authority of a republi- 
 can form of government like ours. Now, to preserve those 
 separate sovereignties, there is but one way it can be done, 
 and that is to make a King in every State, and an Emperor, 
 and extend commerce to all the different governments, 
 through an Emperor. Now, it is impossible for any other 
 kind of government to be formed out of their platform of 
 government. 
 
 Now, it will be recollected Mr. Calhoun observed, under 
 the working of those parties, we would be obliged to come 
 
63 
 
 under a monarcliical government of some kind or other, and 
 that no constitution had ever been created worthy- of the 
 name, and he doubted if there ever would be one ; but he, 
 at the same time, applauded monarchical governments very 
 much. Now, as I have shown that Mr, Calhoun's platform 
 of government could do nothing else but to destroy the gov- 
 ernment of the people, and bring us imder the worst of 
 monarchical governments on earth. I do not know of any 
 one that had a better right to know that the workings of 
 those party principles would bring us under a monarchical 
 government, than Mr. Calhoun, who had created them for 
 the express purpose, or he must have labored under great 
 error. Now you see, at the commencement of the war, cot- 
 ton was the great king, that would bring everybody to our 
 assistance ; but king cotton died, and no one came to our 
 assistance, but king emergency Came and took king cotton's 
 place, and forced everybody and all the property into the 
 hands of the military power. And just so if we establish 
 those separate States Rights governments, king emergency 
 will cause us to make kings in every State, and then emer- 
 gencies will require us to make an Emperor, so that we can 
 extend commerce to every government, ports or no ports. 
 Tlien king emergency will require us to be taxed to build 
 palaces for the Emperor, and all the different kings to live 
 in ; and emergencies will require us to be taxed to furnish 
 princely fortunes for each king and emperor to live in 
 princely royalty and grandeur every year. We will also 
 be taxed to keep up a great many royal officers to carry on 
 their royal governments. We will also be taxed to keep up 
 a standing army, to keep the people from insurrection against 
 them. We will be taxed to pay all the necessary wants of 
 government besides. Tliose taxes will be so numerous that 
 the people cannot live and pay them. They will then sell 
 the people's land for taxes, and appoint agents to buy in the 
 peoples land for the government, as they will call it, and 
 they will settle and fix the landed property in certain lords, 
 
64 
 
 like they do in other monarchical governments , and if the 
 Legislatures are placed in such power as all these three 
 parties have claimed, and are now acting on, and carrying 
 out under Lincoln's abolition administration, and amending 
 the Constitution to give them power to carry out these pow- 
 ers and fix the powers in legislators and Congress, to eman- 
 cipate one part of our property, what would hinder them to 
 emancipate and take any kind of property we have ? Now, 
 this is establishing a government of robbery in place of a 
 government of protection. Now, under such a system of 
 government could any one, who is a member of this govern- 
 ment, North or South, have any security for either life, 
 liberty or property? There would be no foundation for 
 them to establish any security on. All would have to de- 
 pend on the will of the Legislature, and if you disputed their 
 authority, and they would take every thing from you, they 
 ■would decide for themselves, and choose their own mode 
 and measure of redress ; and if you brought yourselves un- 
 der the displeasure of your only and lawful sovereign, and 
 within the severe pains and penalties by which their high 
 and sovereign power, the legislatures, would not fail to pro- 
 vide in their self-defence, the fault and folly would be their 
 own. This language applies to the principles of Calhoun's 
 platform, yet it equally applies to the principles of the abo- 
 lition party, for they have refused to comply with every 
 obligation entered into under the Constitution, and created 
 laws, by acts of the Legislatures, both by the State, and now 
 in the Congress of the United States, right in opposition to 
 the laws of the Constitution, and have used the military 
 power which was created for the purpose of supporting civil 
 law, and in place of applying the military law to protect 
 the civil law, applied it in robbing, murdering and destroy- 
 ing the people, when both oath and duty, and the law of the 
 Union, would bind them to protect each member of the 
 Union. Now, if the people, North or South, encourages 
 this power to bo fixed in the Legislatures, and they under 
 
65 
 
 no obligation only their will, and they decide for themselves, 
 as they have done, and choose their own mode and measure 
 of redress over the people, what will hinder them from 
 establishing such a government over us as I have described ? 
 And I defy and challenge the world to show that any other 
 kind of government can be created out of their principles. 
 jSTow, I wish to show the people the great necessity of resist- 
 ing this power immediately, and in what way to resist it 
 successfully and easily. 
 
 First. I will endeavor to show the great reason this ille- 
 gal and unconstitutional principle should be protested 
 against, claimed by legislators as sovereign powers, when, 
 under the authority of the Constitution, they possess no 
 powers but delegated, and all other powers not delegated, 
 are expressly proliibited, which is the only way legislation, 
 can be confined within its proper bounds. But suppose we 
 change our government, and let the legislators be under no 
 obligation, only their own will. They could create any kind 
 of government over us they pleased, and we will suppose 
 that it is their object to create a King in every State, and 
 an Emperor, it would be one of the strongest in the world, 
 and the hardest to resist their power. We will suppose one 
 State could succeed in forming an insurrection against the 
 usurped King of a State, in order to sustain their original 
 rights, secured to them under the Constitution, the Emper- 
 or would send armies to help to sustain the King in power 
 over the people, and crush the people of the State imme- 
 diately ; so they never could have it in their power to get 
 out from under the power of those monarchs. Now, this is 
 tlie reason why I say the people have no time to lose to be- 
 gin to act in their defence, for they have gained two very 
 important points over the people, in order to carry out all 
 those powers over the people. One is in getting the people 
 divided into two parties, and the other is in getting the mil- 
 itary power in their own hands, and the people, without 
 any leader to direct or guide them in what is right or wrong, 
 5 
 
and the Radicals, as tliey are called, are trying to keep the 
 people divided by their threats of still inflicting further in- 
 juries on the South, and enforcing the military power over 
 the people. But is this military power not over the North 
 as well as the South ? Do not the Northern people have 
 to furnish the men to keep up this military force, and are not 
 the Northern people under the wink and nod of their mili- 
 tary chieftains ? Did not the Northern troops believe all 
 they were fighting for was to get the people of the South to 
 go back into the Union ? But when the South agreed to go 
 back into the Union they would not consent. They should 
 not go back unless they would take an oath to support and 
 defend the Constitution of the United States, and all acts 
 passed by Congress, and all proclamations of the President, 
 and the emancipation of their African property, notwith- 
 standing no power has ever been delegated, by the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, to any power or powers on earth 
 to require any other oath than that of the Constitution it- 
 self. Is this not carrying the power, as fast as it can, into 
 the hands of the legislatures and oflicers, and from the peo- 
 ple? The people and officers took all the oaths they re- 
 quired in order to get back in the Union, for they were 
 forced to do so by military threats, and, by doing so, were 
 promised pardon and admittance, back under the Union. 
 Now, if I understand the meaning of pardon, it means the 
 acquittal of the offence they are charged with, in every 
 sense. But, after all this, they would not admit them into 
 the Union ; but add and fix a great many other terms 
 that- must be complied with, before they will admit them in 
 the Union. Now, you will examine the Constitution of the 
 United States ; it gives Congress no power to fix the terms 
 that a State shall come into the Union. The Constitution 
 fixes the terms that a State shall come into the Union itself. 
 Every State that comes into the Union, has to come in under 
 the same Agreement all the rest came in under. The oSicers 
 of every State in the United States had to take an oath to 
 
67 
 
 support and defend tlie Constitution of the United States, 
 notwithstanding any constitution or law in any State to the 
 contrary. Now, this shows that every State has to come 
 into the Union under the same agreement the rest did, and 
 also the Constitution of the United States provides that no 
 State shall have power to pass an ex post facto laio, a law 
 imparing the obligation of contracts. This shows clearly 
 their object is to destroy the Union, and not preserve it. 
 Now, this shows the Constitution of the United States has 
 fixed the terms itself, and that Legislatures of Congress or 
 the Legislatures of States, neither of them have any power, 
 under the authority of the Constitution, to fix any terms at 
 all. All the power any of them have is to conform to the 
 principles fixed and established in the Constitution of the 
 United States. So you will see that every principle adopted 
 by the Abolition administration is right in opposition to the 
 principles adopted by the Constitution; and, in accordance 
 with the secession principles of Calhoun, and, if adopted 
 and established, would leave it in the power of the legisla- 
 tors to rob every member of such a Union as they ofter to 
 the people to come under. Now, I will not class the people 
 of the North or the people of the South with the leaders of 
 the North and South, for they must be innocent of any bad 
 designs or bad intentions, for every principle adopted by 
 the leaders of those parties was strictly against the people's 
 interests, and all good, honest men's interests, none of whom 
 could be benefitted, but utterly destroyed. 
 
 But let us see, in the fir^t place, what great crime the South 
 has done, that they deserve this great wrath on the part of the 
 Abolitionists. The legislative members of the Southern States, 
 either in the States, nor in Congress, neither of them have 
 passed any acts, nor attempted to pass any acts, that would de- 
 prive any citizen of the Northern States of any right secured to 
 them in their States, nor anywhere in the United States ; neither 
 did they vote for any one for that purpose ; but as far as my 
 knowledge goes, they complied with every obligation they had 
 entered into to the United States. But how does it stand be- 
 
68 
 
 tween the North and South ? HaA'e they not refused to com- 
 ply with every obligation they have entered into with the 
 South? Did not the Constitution secure the right to every 
 citizen of the United States, to have free ingress and egress into 
 any other State, and take his property with him, and that no 
 duties or restrictions should be laid by any State on the prop- 
 erty of the United States, or either of them? Now, they 
 passed acts by the Legislatures that the Southern people should 
 not take their property into their State, and they passed duties 
 and restrictions that if we moved into their States, they would 
 rob us of our African property. Now, we ownecl no other 
 property but what kind of properly we owned when we went 
 into the Union. The agreement, under the Constitution was, 
 that no law or regulation should be made by any State to dis- 
 charge a servant, or person bound to service, due to a citizen 
 of another State ; but if a servant, or person bound to service, 
 shall escape and flee from one State to another State, they shall 
 be bound to deliver such servant, or person bound to service, 
 to the proper owner. Now, they did not only forget the obli- 
 <yation of their oath to comply with that obligation, but they 
 created laws that if a servant, or person bound to service, should 
 escape and flee to their State, they should be free, and if any 
 one attempted to rescue such servant, or person bound to ser- 
 vice, or if any one should aid or assist in delivering such ser- 
 vant to his owner, they should be find and imprisoned to a large 
 extent. Also, they passed laws that a State coming out of a 
 Territory, that the people of the Territory, by their majorities, 
 had the right to prevent the owners of African property should 
 not be permitted to move into their State with the restriction 
 that they should be robbed of their African property, when the 
 Territory belonged as much to the slave owner as any one else. 
 Now, this was laying duties on the property of the Southern- 
 ers, right in opposition to the laws of the Constitution. 
 
 Now, Avhen the people of the South had remonstrated against 
 their illegal and unconstitutional proceedings, and they still re- 
 fused to comply, the South told them that they would separate 
 themselves from them as long as they were unwilling to comply 
 with the terms of the Union, and have a government of their 
 
69 
 
 own. But they would not consent for us to quit them ; but, in 
 place of agreeing to comply with the terms of the Union, they 
 would rob us as much as they pleased, by acts of Legislatures. 
 Now, the people of the South were taught by the secessionists 
 that they had the right, under the Constitution, by acts of ma- 
 jorities, to dispossess us of every thing we possessed. N'ow, 
 under those circumstances, is it any wonder that the people of 
 the South would wish to separate themselves from a people that 
 were bound, by a firm league of friendship, to support and de- 
 fend each other against all attacks made against us on account 
 of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any pretence whatever, and 
 they bound by their honor and oath to do so, and they robbing 
 and depriving us of every right secured to us under the Consti- 
 tution of the United States? Is it any wonder that such a 
 course pursued by the Abolitionists, 'that the citizens of the 
 Southern States should wish, or be easily persuaded, to withdraw 
 themselves from the Abolitionists ? Now, all this looks as a 
 concerted plan, on both the secessionists and Abolitionists, in 
 order to get the people under military power, for the Cincinnati 
 Convention, the Calhoun platform, declared that it should not 
 be denied but that a State had the right to emancipate. Now, 
 all those who went to the Convention were lawyers, and the 
 people believed they knew the character and principles of the 
 Constitution, and by such statements being made to them that 
 they had no way to escape the robbery that was offered but to 
 
 go out of the Union. They never told the people that there 
 was a lawful arbiter appointed, by which they could be pro- 
 tected against acts of Legislatures, but told the people there 
 was no one could be found sufficiently impartial to decide 
 against acts of Legislatures, and that none were appointed. 
 That each of the State Legislatures had thg right to decide for 
 themselves and choose their own mode and measure of redress. 
 Therefore, there was no other way to get clear of the robbery 
 threatened by the Abolitionists, and the Abolitionists performed 
 their part in destroying the Union, still threatening they would 
 continue their robber.y. Now take into consideration the great 
 ignorance of the people North and South. The people cannot 
 be to blame, because by false statements and false representa- 
 
70 
 
 tions they got the people divided into parties, and by that 
 means got them under military power. Now, one of those 
 parties could not have got the people under military power 
 by themselves. It took both of them to do it. The secession- 
 ists told the people their remedy was a peaceable remedy. 
 Some of those head parties went so far as to say they would 
 drink all the blood that would be shed in the conflict for a 
 breakfast dram. But, like many other promises, have never 
 been done. This promise was made, but like the story of the 
 babes of the woods, uever fulfilled. Many promises were made 
 to the people. We were to become the richest people in the 
 world, if we would only go out of the Union ; but I never be- 
 lieved one word they said. I understood the character of our 
 government, and I knew if the South or North left the Union 
 we would be the worst destroyed people the sun ever shone 
 upon ; and that to go out of the Union was only to relinquish 
 every right, liberty or protection, already secured to us under 
 the government established by ourselves, and place ourselves 
 under the control of legislative power, and leave them under 
 no obligation only their own will, without any check or chance 
 to resist them ; but to more fully deceive us, those two parties 
 both pretended they were preserving the Union. Is it possible 
 that a Union could be preserved by one party robbing another 
 party ? . Is it possible, that by robbing the minority, it would 
 make them love you? And was not our Union based on a 
 league of friendship ? "What is better to secure friendship than 
 to comply with all the agreements they enter into with each 
 other ? 
 
 Now, as I leave the people free from blame, so far as they 
 are concerned, and as they have both sides been deceived by 
 the leaders of both parties, and dragged out of the Union, and 
 forced under one of the most cruel monarchical governments on 
 earth, as I have shown. My advice is, let the people at once, 
 with one accord, throw away all those parties, and all go back 
 into the Union in its original purity, and restore back all prop- 
 erty taken from the people on both sides,, and make restoration 
 for all wrongs that can be done, and by so doing, we will not 
 only renew our lost Union, destroyed by those designing par- 
 
71 
 
 ties, but we will renew that union of love between each one 
 that ought to have existed, and without which no Union can 
 exist ; and let us forgive one another as fully as if no wrong had 
 been done, and all who will join in making peace, and in har- 
 monizing and making and doing justice, let him have done what 
 he may before, let all his faults be forgiven, and no more named. 
 Let him be received like the father received his prodigal son, 
 with love and friendship ; but, at the same time, I would recom- 
 mend the people to join everywhere and agree not to elect any 
 one in office who did not acknowledge his error and bind him- 
 self to support the principles of the Constitution in its original 
 purity, as I have described, for this is one way we can throw 
 all those designing parties out of office, who have laid the foun- 
 dation for the destruction of our government. The other plan 
 I will recommend to protect ourselves against those usurpers of 
 power over the rights of the people, is to go into the Courts of 
 the United States, and there show that all their acts of robbery 
 and destruction of life, liberty and property have been done with- 
 out any legal authority. That no such acts as they have passed 
 hare ever been delegated, but on the contrary, are expressly 
 prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, which ia 
 all the Union that does, or ever has existed, and have their acts 
 and illegal proceedings pronounced null and void by the legal 
 arbiters. This is the course, and the only and legal course, any 
 one is authorized by the constituted authority of the people, 
 and no other course should ever have been pursued. Now, if 
 the people will all adopt this course, they will soon get from 
 under this military power. Now, the North is under military 
 power as much as the South, and they are no more secure in 
 their rights than the South ; for if they can rob the South, what 
 is to hinder them from robbing the North ? 
 
 Now, it is necessary to show them where their danger lies. 
 "We will suppose that I am not mistaken in my opinion what 
 kind of a government the head leaders of those parties intend- 
 ed to bring the people under. After they got the government 
 of the people destroyed, let us see if there are any classes of 
 people in our country that could be benefitted by the destruc- 
 tion of life, liberty and property, that has occurred, if they 
 
72 
 
 should really succeed in establishing a King in every State, and 
 an Emperor who would fill all those royal offices ? Would it 
 not be the lawyers who advised us to pursue all the plans and 
 courses we have pursued ? Was it not the lawyers ? Recol- 
 lect, Calhoun was a lawyer, Webster was a lawyer, and Clay 
 was a lawyer. Now, if we create an Emperor, a lawyer would 
 fill the office, and have a palace buUt at the people's expense, 
 and he could fix a tax on us to pay princely fortunes for him, 
 to live in princely royalty every year. He, like all other mon- 
 archs, would have to keep a life guard all the time, and a large 
 standing army all the time, to prevent insurrection. If we have 
 a King in every State, who would fill the office of a King ? It 
 would be lawyers who would fill all the royal offices, to carry 
 on all those royal governments. It would be lawyers, and who 
 would be obliged to pay all the taxes to keep up all those royal 
 officers in royalty and grandeur. It would be the people, black 
 and white, and they would have to keep up large standing ar- 
 mies to keep the people from insurrection. They would tax 
 the people to feed and clothe, and furnish arms and ammuni- 
 tion, all to keep us in bondage. Then there would be no one 
 free, black nor white. Then they will tax us so high we cannot 
 pay our taxes, and live. They will then sell our lands, and 
 appoint agents to buy it in for the government, as they will call 
 it, and divide all the land to some of the heads of departments. 
 Establish a set of landlords over the people, and make the peo- 
 ple pay rent for their own land. 
 
 Now, this is the true situation they are trying to bring the 
 people under. See what power they claim at this time, under 
 the name of the Civil Rights Bill. They assume the power to 
 make all persons citizens of the United States, without any 
 qualifications whatever. Now, where has there been any power 
 delegated to Congress to create citizens by any other plan than 
 that laid down by the Constitution ? If no power has been 
 delegated, no power exists on their part. Who are making all 
 those unconstitutional laws ? It is the lawyers. In the first 
 place, they had no power delegated to them to take from the 
 people their African property, but were expressly prohibited by 
 the Constitution ; neither have they any power to give them 
 
73 
 
 the right of citizenship ; neither have they a right to legislate 
 on any of the domestic affairs of the people of any State, their 
 legislative power is confined to the national affairs, and is well 
 confined by prohibitions and restrictions, and is the only busi- 
 ness set apart for them to do. All this military power and 
 legislation they assume over the domestic affairs of the States, 
 like the rest of their legislation, are usurped powers, with- 
 out one shadow of constitutional authority. For the Constitu- 
 tion provides, the powers not delegated to the United States 
 by the Constitution, or prohibited to the States, is reserved to 
 the States, respectively, or the people. Now, there is no power 
 delegated to the United States in Congress, but the national 
 affairs, and the business set apart for the States to legislate on 
 is the domestic affairs of the State, and neither of those two 
 legislative bodies have any power or authority to legislate on 
 the business set apart for either of them to do. Any attempt 
 to do so is usurped powers, and unconstitutional. 
 
 Neither is their act called Amendment, constitutional. It is* 
 unconstitutional. In two respects the Constitution provides 
 that amendments may be made only. Now, amendments do 
 not mean to destroy the original, but to make it stronger and 
 better, and if it is an amendment it must accord with the origi- 
 nal, or cannot become a part of the Constitution. The Consti- 
 tution provides that no private property shall be taken for pub- 
 lic use without full compensation to the owner. It also provides 
 that the military shall be subordinate to the civil. 
 
 Now, this so-called amendment would destroy one of the 
 most important parts of the Constitution, and does not accord 
 with the balance of the Constitution in place of protection 
 against all attacks made against us, or any of us, on any account 
 whatever. It is giving Congress power to rob us, and in place 
 of using the military power to protect us in our civil rights, 
 they are using it to rob us. In case of amendments being 
 made, the Constitution provides that no State, without its con- 
 sent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Now, 
 when this so-called amendment was passed, a large number of 
 the States were, by Congress, denied any representation, both 
 in the Senate, or any other place. Now, all those acts have 
 
74 
 
 been passed by lawyers. Now, you see, this Congress, under 
 Lincoln's administration, is all this time usurping all the powers 
 over the domestic affairs of the States, and is assuming all 
 powers over the domestic affairs of the States, and pretends 
 they are protecting the Union, both of the people North and 
 South. You may see clearly that they are trying to utterly 
 destroy it, and keep the South out of the Union ; and, by so 
 doing, to retain military power over the people after the people 
 took the oath they required, and the President pardoned them, 
 in order that the people of the South could take their place in 
 the Union. They would not consent to receive them into the 
 Union, but passed acts that no one, who was elected by the 
 people of the South, should be permitted to take a seat in Con- 
 gress, unless he would swear that he had not held an office in 
 the war, under the Confederate, army, or sympathized with 
 those of the rebellion. An oath they knew no honest or good 
 man would take, and, in that way, are keeping them out of the 
 , Union, when they pretended to the people, in time of the war, 
 they were calling on them to fight to preserve the Union. 
 
 Again, during the war, they never made any proposition to 
 the South they could have accepted of. They never offered 
 any other terms but to rob us as much as they pleased. I have 
 not written this in justification of the rebellion, but I have 
 written this in justification of the charge I made against the 
 Abolition administration, and the head secessionists, and show • 
 why I still suspect them, and put all the honest people on their 
 watch, and guard. North and South. I am as much a friend to 
 one as the other, if they do right, and I consider the one in as 
 much danger of being destroyed as the other. They have be- 
 gun on the South first, because they were the fewest in number. 
 I will call the attention of the people of the United States to a 
 proposed amendment, dated April 2Sth, 1866, agreed to by 
 twelve against three, that until the 4th of July, 1870, all per- 
 sons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it 
 aid or comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for 
 members of Congress and electors for the President and Vice 
 President. They provided, also, that Congress shall have power 
 
ro 
 
 to enforce, by an appropriate legislation, the provisions of this ar- 
 ticle. 
 
 I will call the attention of the people of the ITnited States 
 to the proposed amendment of the third and fifth amendments ; 
 the third amendment proposed, would exclude every member 
 of the Union of the Southern States from sending a member 
 to Congress of the United States, unless they would swear a 
 positive lie, because every honest man in the Southern States, 
 who believed that they were only resisting the robbery, and 
 attempts on the part of the mobs and raids of the Abolition- 
 ists, and believed that the Abolitionists had left them no other 
 way, after they declared war against them, to protect their 
 homes and families, but to fight. 
 
 Who could help but to sympathise, for the distress was 
 brought on all the Union men of the South and North, by the 
 abolition robbery. Now, they are not satisfied with the rob- 
 bery and murder brought about by their unconstitutional pro- 
 ceedings against the South and their own people, but are trying 
 to pass every law they can, to prevent and destroy the Union, 
 for those amendments they propose to make, would deprive the 
 people of having any representation in Congress ; and this would 
 prevent any of the Southern States coming in under the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. Then the fifth proposition is by 
 the way of amendments, that Congress shall have power to en- 
 force, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article- 
 Now you will see that the object of the third proposed amend- 
 ment is to prevent the Southern States to come into the Union, 
 that they can have some excuse to keep up the military power 
 over the people ; and the fifth proposed amendment is to in- 
 crease power in Congress, under the excuse to prevent insur- 
 rection on the part of the South. Why should the Abolition- 
 ists be afraid of the South insurrecting against them ? Have 
 they done any wrong to the South ? Have they been robbing 
 them, destroying their homes, firesides, and their families ? If 
 they have not, I will guarantee and insure them against all 
 damages from the South ; but I will go further, if they will fall 
 back under the Constitution of the United States in its original 
 purity, and comply with all the obligations entered into, in fu- 
 
76 
 
 ture they will forgive you. For the people of the Soiith desire 
 nothing more than their rights, secured under the Constitution, 
 in its original purity, but to go back under the Abolition rob- 
 bing government. 
 
 I have no desire myself to go, for is not the abolition princi- 
 ple a destroyer of the Union, and all rights secured under it ? 
 And in place of protecting the people. North and South, are 
 fixing the power in the Legislatures, both in State and Con- 
 gress, to rob the people, from one end of the Union to the 
 other. You may, from what I have shown, clearly see that 
 their principles and the secessionists, and compromisors, and 
 separate State sovereignty, all transfers the power from the 
 . people and their Constitution into the Legislatures. No other 
 power has ever been attempted by either. Now, I must ac- 
 knowledge that I have no sympathy for the destroyers of the 
 Constitution ; but I have great sympathy for the people, both 
 North and South, who have been so cruelly deceived and mis- 
 led by false representations and false instructions, Avhich misled 
 thousands on thousands of our best and wisest men astray, and 
 assisted in carrying on all this destruction of life and property, 
 now so plainly to be seen. Bat suppose I should become more 
 liberal, and come to the conclusion that all that ever has been 
 brought upon us has been done by an error of the head and not 
 of the heart, and that all parties, of their own accord, should 
 come out frankly and acknowledge their error, and all be wil- 
 ling to fall back uader the Constitution in its original purity 
 what joy and happiness would reign all over the United States 
 of America ! But should this not be the case, ray prayers are 
 that the people will think for themselves, and act for their own 
 interest, and all agree to vote for no Abolitionist, no advo- 
 cate of settling disputes by compromises of Lsglslatures, in 
 place of a court and jury, and they to be sworn to decide in ac- 
 cordance with the Constitution of the United States, and vote 
 for no one who advocates secession, no separate State Right 
 sovereignty, for there is no sovereign in the United States, but 
 the people and their Constitution, that being the supi-eme law, 
 of the land, and the expressed will of the people. 
 
 But now, as I have shown, no one could be proSted by 
 
77 
 
 this destruction of life, liberty and property, but the lawyers ; 
 and also, that it has been by their counsel we have been misled, 
 yet I feel it to be my duty to do them justice, as a part of our 
 community. I believe that there are as many honest, upright, 
 just, and as trustworthy men, according to their number, as any 
 class of people in our country, and as useful members in society, 
 and as much needed as any other member of our Union. There- 
 fore, I do not wish to be understood to mean, by what I have 
 written, not to elect laAvyers, for I believe there are as many 
 honest lawyers, according to their number, as any class of 
 the people. But I wish to be understood to say, elect no one, 
 lawyer or no lawyers, until they will agree to oppose those 
 principles I have described. And in that way, you will get 
 all those designers out of office, that are destroying the govern- 
 ment of the people and transferring all power to the Legisla- 
 tures, any King, Prince or Potentate ever possessed over the 
 people, as I have shown, and elect such men as will do away 
 with military armies, and send the soldiers home to their fami- 
 lies and friends, where they ought to have been all this time. 
 
 Now, this is the government that Lincoln and his party have 
 thrown away, and Jeff. Davis and his party have done the same, 
 and both parties have adopted, in its stead, what they call, se- 
 parate States Rights sovereignty. Davis and his party pretend 
 to be resisting Abolitionism under States Rights sovereignty 
 or secession, when every principle adopted by the (so-called) 
 States Rights Conventions, establishes Abolition principles as 
 strongly as language or words can express them. But as I 
 have shown the true principles of the Constitution, and the ob- 
 ject for which they were created, I will endeavor to show the 
 true principles of separate States sovereignty, and the object 
 for Avhich they were created. I will not be governed by what 
 I hear in speeches or newspapers, nor by words used by the 
 framers of this States Rights party, but I go to the Conven- 
 tions, where they laid doAvn their platforms, and see what princi- 
 ples they have been attempting to carry out and establish over 
 the people. In the first Convention, in 1832, and in the second, 
 in Cincinnati, and in the third, in Charleston, all the said, or 
 pretended Democrats, North and South, met ; and, not coming 
 
to a proper agreement, appointed another meeting elsewhere. 
 But it matters not so much, tvhen or xvhere they met, as what 
 they adopted, as the standard principles of their government as 
 a States Rights secession government. I will call the attention 
 of the people to acts passed in their Convention of 1832. Now, 
 it is my object to show the people that their object in creating 
 this State Rights secession principle was to destroy every right, 
 and, if established, would destroy every right, liberty and 
 privilege, guaranteed and secured to the people under the 
 Constitution, (as I have shown,) and would establish power 
 
 in the Legislature, not only to emancipate the African property, 
 but life, liberty and all the property of the people. Instead of 
 their being secure in their jaapers, persons, houses and effects as 
 the Constitution provides, they would not be secure in any- 
 thing. And, according to the provisions of those principles, 
 created in, and by those Conventions, the Legislatures have 
 the power secured to them, to take everything from the people, 
 being imder no obligation but their own will, and the people 
 havilig no course but to obey. For, in these prmciples 
 they have left no check on, or against, acts of legisla- 
 tion, or acts of majorities, as is provided in the Constitu- 
 tion of- the United States. Their princi})les would destroy 
 every right, liberty or privilege guaranteed to the people, and 
 would transfer all the power to the Legislatures that ever any 
 king, prince or potentate ever had on earth, not excepting the 
 African chief, who kills whom he pleases, eats whom he pleases, 
 takes from whom he pleases, and gives to whom he pleases. 
 They explain the word State to mean the Legislature of the 
 State. The addresses, accompanying the ordinance, provides 
 that there is not now, nor ever has been, such a political body 
 as the people of the United States. The extent of the j^ower 
 does not depend on the people, but ujion the State Legisla- 
 tures, and they are under no obligation, only their own will, just 
 as any king, prince or potentate. 
 
 They have the absolute control over the lives, liberty and 
 property of the people — the clear right to declare the extent of 
 their obligations, and, when once declared, the people have no 
 
 course but to obey ; and if they refuse obedience, the Legisla- 
 
79 
 
 ture, in their high and sovereign capacity, will not fail to pro- 
 vide for her self-defence — the fault and folly will be their own. 
 The self-defence, put up by all who claim the right of sove- 
 reignty over the people, as this States Rights secession has done, 
 is, to make the penalty death, if you speak against, or resist 
 the laws they established. 
 
 Now, under the States Rights sovereignty, they provide 
 that the Legislature should have power, from time to time, to 
 prescribe what oath of allegiance officers and citizens should 
 take, and also define what should constitute treason against the 
 State, and the penalty annexed to treason. They defined trea- 
 son to be, speaking against any act passed by the Legislature, 
 or resisting it in any way or manner whatever — the penalty 
 should be death, without the benefit of the clergy, which means, 
 without any chance to be reprieved. 
 
 They provided that, in no case wherein was called in question 
 the authority of this ordinance, or any act of the Legislature, in 
 pursuance ©f the same, should an appeal, or copy of an appeal, 
 be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any 
 person attempting 'to take an appeal, or copy of an appeal » 
 should be dealt with in the same manner as for contempt of 
 court. This was done to secure to the Legislature the power 
 over the lives, liberty and property of the people, under the 
 pretence that their object was to protect the people against an 
 oppressive tariff, and give to them free trade ; and we are now 
 beginning to see what kind of free trade they are giving us. 
 The Constitution of the United States gave us as free trade as 
 could be given by any government. It provides that no tax or 
 duty shall be paid on any article exported from any State. 
 They went further to secure the power to the Legislatures of 
 the States over the people. They provided that, in no case in 
 which was called in question the authority of the ordinance, or 
 any act of the Legislatures of the States, should any judge or 
 jury be permitted to sit on trial, xmless they would first take an 
 oath, well and truly to obey, execute and enforce the ordinance, 
 and whatever act the Legislature should pass, to the full extent 
 and meaning of the same. They provided that there should be 
 no appeal from the decision of a court-martial. This would 
 
80 
 
 place the military law above the civil law ia time of peace — 
 whereas, the Constitution of the United States provides that 
 the military law shall be subordinate to the civil law. Now, 
 since there is no appeal from the military court, this establishes 
 the military law above the civil law, and the Legislatures being 
 bound by no oath, and under no obligation but their own will, 
 could pass any act they pleased, and the penalty to be inflicted 
 on the military courts for disobedience, and enforce any law 
 they pleased. They also provided that all persons holding 
 offices of honor, profit or trust, civil pr military, under this 
 State — members of the Legislature excepted — shall, in such 
 time, and in such manner as the Legislature shall prescribe, take 
 an oath well and truly to obey, execute and enforce this ordi- 
 nance, and such act, or acts of the Legislature as may be passed 
 in pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and meaning 
 of the same ; and on the neglect or omission of any such person 
 or persons so to do, his or their office, or offices, shall be forth- 
 with vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person or persons 
 were dead, or had resigned. 
 
 No person, hereafter elected to any office of profit or trust, 
 civU or military — members of the Legislatures excepted — shall? 
 until the Legislatures shall otherwise provide and direct, enter 
 on the execution of his office, or be in any respect competent to 
 discharge the duties thereof, untU he shall, in like manner, have, 
 taken a similar oath. And no juror shall be impaneled in any 
 of the courts of this State, in any cause, m which shall be called 
 in question this ordinance, or any acts of the Legislature, passed 
 in pursuance of the same, unless he shall first, in addition to the 
 usual oath, have taken on oath that he "s\^ well and truly obey, 
 execute and enforce such act or acts of the Legislature as may 
 be passed, to carry the same into operation and effect, according 
 to the true intent and meaning thereof. Now, from the pro- 
 visions of this ordinance, it will be seen that the whole object of 
 the framers of this convention was to destroy all the power in 
 the people, and place as much power in the Legislature as ever 
 any King or Prince ever had. The ordinance further declares 
 and ordains, that the allegiance of the citizens of this State is 
 due to the State only, and those to whom they may think 
 
81 
 
 proper to transfer their allegiance. And as they have defined 
 the word State to mean the Legislature, and them to be the 
 lawful sovereigns, and under no obligations, but their own will 
 by oath, or otherwise, they have, at all times, represented the 
 State as one party, and the people another ^nd distinct party, 
 in accordance with all the provisions of the ordinance, and so 
 explained, by the addresses accompanying the ordinance. They 
 have placed more power in the Legislature than exists in any 
 King, Prince or Potentate in any civilized portion of the globe. 
 The heathen African chief is the only one I know of, who pos- 
 sesses the powers fixed in the Legislatures, under secession and 
 States Rights principles. 
 
 Now, Lincoln is acting with the Abolitionists, and carrying 
 out the same principles, over the Northern people, as the South- 
 ern politicians are carrying out over the South. For it is under 
 the States Rights doctrine that they assume to have the right, 
 or rather the power, to rob the people of their African property. 
 If the legislative bodies have a right, by acts of legislation, and 
 acts of majorities, to take one part of the people's property, and 
 they under no obligation but their own wUl, they can legislate 
 the life, liberty, and all the property from the people of the 
 North, just as the politicians have done at the South. And to 
 show clearly that they were acting under the same principles, 
 and perhaps in concert together, it will be recollected that the 
 Convention of 1832 disputed every obligation they were under, 
 to the constituted authorities of the United States, and made a 
 demand on all the constituted authorities, and all the citizens of 
 the State of South Carolina, to obey and give effect to their 
 ordinance, and all acts of the Legislature, both what they had 
 passed and what they might pass heroafter ; and changed the 
 oath of allegiance to support and defend the ordinance, and 
 whatever laws they might pass, instead of the constituted au- 
 thorities of the people. They declared that they would not 
 permit the constituted authorities of the State, or of the United 
 States, to prevent the enforcement of the ordinance — to shut up 
 her ports and harrass her commerce ; if they did, they were no 
 longer a member of the Union, and would not submit to the 
 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, 
 6 
 
82 
 
 this was assuming all powers over the constituted authorities of 
 the United States, and creating a different one altogether, pre- 
 tending that they were trying to preserve the Union, while 
 every act they did was destroying the Constitution and creating 
 one of the most tyrannical governments in the world. All this 
 was done under the pretence of protecting us against an oppres- 
 sive tariff, when we were acting under as free trade as any 
 government could make. 
 
 These leading characters told the people of the South that 
 they were paying all the tariff, and that they were paying forty 
 dollars, out of every hundred dollars worth of cotton sold, into 
 the pockets of Northern manufacturers. This was all false. 
 We never paid one cent of duty on cotton, for the Constitution 
 provided that no tax or duty should be laid on any article ex- 
 ported from any State, so that no tax or duty can be laid on 
 any article exported from the United States. It also provides 
 that no article shall enter free in one port and pay duty in 
 another, but that the duties shall be uniform throughout the 
 United States. Now, the cotton pays no tax nor duty, in the 
 United States, nor in England, or anywhere else. Now, did 
 not these men know that ? They certainly did ; but the com- 
 mon people did not, and believed it, because it came from such 
 good authority. But to convince the people that they told 
 them the truth, they brought up statistics of the Northern and 
 Southern States. And as a sample of the statistics of 1860, I 
 will explain, from what they made the assertion that the South- 
 ern States paid nearly all the tariff. The statement is that : 
 Northern States exported - - - - 97,346,979 
 Southern States exported - - - - 218,896,450 
 Upon this ground they asserted that the South paid to the 
 amount of tariff they exported, and the North only paid tariff 
 duties to the amount they exported, when there was not a cent 
 of duty paid on what either exported ; for, according to the 
 provisions, all goes free, and cotton pays none in the United 
 States, or anywhere else. This shows that the South is largely 
 the one benefitted by the exports, for they export so much more 
 than the North. Now, the reason cotton passes free of tariff 
 duties in England, is because it answers as an article of ex- 
 
83 
 
 change, in payment of debts — the same as gold and silver — in 
 every comitry where it goes. All nations want it, as it answers 
 for an article of exchange, and will pay debts, the same as gold 
 and silver. It enhances the value of it in place of diminishing 
 it — and in place of the tariff injuring it, it can't do the cotton 
 harm. But let us see who do pay the tariff duties. In the fii'st 
 place, the North pays a great deal the most, because they buy 
 the most of the goods. For the most goods are shipped to the 
 Northern ports, where there is capital to buy them — good ports 
 in which to land them, and also good ports for the vessels. 
 
 The goods are sold in whatever port they are landed, and 
 the merchants buying them pay the tariff duties on them, and 
 they have to sell them that much higher to their customers, so 
 that the consumers really pay all the tariff at last, and nobody 
 else. But this duty that is paid, goes into the public treasury 
 to pay the expenses of government, and is found to be the ea- 
 siest way to raise money to defray the expenses of govern- 
 ments. The people of every government are better satisfied 
 to raise it in that way than any other way ever adopted, and it is 
 the way adopted by all governments. 
 
 From this, you will see, that the statement of our States 
 Rights secessionists is all false, and not one word of it true. 
 We were also told by these protectors, that the North had got 
 rich oft' the South — that we were only united to them for their 
 benefit, and our own loss and injury — that our own interests 
 were antagonistic to theirs — that whatever benefitted them, in- 
 jured us, and whatever benefitted us, injured them — that they 
 had the majority, and if we remained with them, the inerests 
 of the South were ruined. They represented to the people that 
 we had no remedy against them, but acts of majorities, and 
 this power was lost, and we had no remedy but to secede. But 
 I think I have shown that, the people under the Constitution, 
 are not governed by acts of majorities, nor protected by them 
 either, but by a wn-itten agreement, which is established, as the 
 supreme law of the land. 
 
 The next thing to consider, that they have told us, is, that 
 the North has gotten rich off of us, and if we separate from them, 
 the riches they are getting from us, we will have for ourselves. 
 
84 
 
 Now, this statement is false, also. It is the location of the 
 country that makes those Northern cities rich, and gives them 
 the advantage. There is a ridge of mountains running from 
 the Potomac to the Valley of the Mississippi, which cut us off 
 from any chance of furnishing commerce beyond them. So, if 
 the merchants of Charleston were to buy ship loads of goods, 
 they could only sell, to the wants of the people, up to the moun- 
 tains, and, if they sold any more, they would have to ship them 
 to the North, or New Oiieans. But the North furnishes twen- 
 ty millions of people with goods, beyond those mountains, be- 
 sides furnishing us. So the^' can afford to buy ship loads of 
 goods, because they have a market in which to sell them, which 
 the South has not, and that is the reason they have gotten rich 
 by commerce. New Orleans will also become a very wealthy 
 city, when all those rich vallies become settled, along those 
 1 ir*^e rivers flowing into the great Mississippi. 
 
 It is also said that the interests of the North and South are 
 antagonistic. This, I will show, is another error, and this error 
 is o-rounded on the authority of John C. Calhoun's philosophy 
 of reasoning. According to his statement, every interest is an- 
 tao-onistic. The ground upon which he rests his argument is 
 first based upon a proposition Avhich he makes. Why did it 
 become necessary that a government should exist ? He argues 
 that it is necessary, from the very principle God has implanted 
 in the nature of man. Every man is created, having in him a 
 greater regard for his own interest, than for that of another, 
 and, on that account, every one wants to get all he can, and 
 give to others as little as he can, and, on this ground, every se- 
 pai'ate interest becomes antagonistic. Even the tax payer and 
 the tax receiver, offices and officers, and everything become an- 
 tagonistic. This is the reason why, he says, we need a govern- 
 ment in order that we can protect each interest against the an- 
 tagonists of each other. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun undertakes to devise ways and means to protect 
 •each interest against the antagonists of each other. He tries 
 the numerical majority, and finds it will not do of itself; he 
 then tries the conciirrent majority, and this comes nearest of 
 any plan he can find. That is, the country shall be organized, 
 
85 
 
 and every interest divided to itself; every interest elects its 
 own candidate, and then they might consider their interests se - 
 cure in their own representative ; and, when they come to pass 
 laws, have it so fixed that no law could be passed, unless all the 
 different interests would give their consent to the law. But, in 
 order to adopt a plan to force them to a compromise, when they 
 refused to agree, and stop all action of government, which places 
 us in anarchy, Avhich would be the|worst fix we coiild be in. 
 And that would force all the different interests to a compro- 
 mise. Every interest would conipromise as much of his inter- 
 est, to the benefit of the other's interests, and, in this way, get 
 along wonderfully. Then, he] goes on to compare the courts 
 and juries as a model of this plan, imder his concurrent plan of 
 majorities. He says, when the jury hears the case argued, they 
 then meet to decide on it. They may not all agree at first, but 
 one after another gives way ; but, for all that, no verdict can be 
 legal without the consent of the whole. How seldom does it 
 occur that a verdict is not obtained ? 
 
 Now, let us examine this subject, and see if there is any 
 truth or substance in this whole argument, except that God has 
 created man with a greater regard for his own interest, than 
 that of another. That is true. But, I deny that any of his 
 other propositions are true. Let us examine for ourselves ; let 
 us see whither the court and jury will answer as a model to 
 represent his concurrent consent of the representatives of aU 
 these different interests. Let us see if the two principles are 
 not very different in character. In the first place, a juror is not 
 allowed to sit on a trial where he has any interest in the case. 
 If he has expressed an opinion before he heard the case tried, 
 it deprives him of the right to sit on the jury. But how would 
 it be with the representatives of these different interests ? They 
 would not be bound, nor have any regard for any other inter- 
 est, except their own, and before they were elected, they woul'd 
 have to express their opinions, and be elected for the express 
 purpose of sustaining those principles expressed. If they were 
 elected for the very purpose of sustaining those principles, and 
 should compromise away those principles, how would those re- 
 presentatives feel when they returned to their constituents ? 
 
Would they not rather wish, Avhen the action of the govern- 
 ment stopped, that it woiild stay stopped, rather than to go 
 back to their constituents so disgraced? Would not such a 
 government be the most unstable and insecure of all govern- 
 ments ? 
 
 But, let us examine his position in regard to each different 
 interest, and see if it is true that all interests conflict with each 
 other, and whether the different interests need any law to pro- 
 tect them, other than God himself has created ? For we are 
 told that when God had finished creating, all things were very 
 good. But, it appears from Mr. Calhoun's -writings, that he has 
 found that God was mistaken, and he (Mr. Calhoun) has set 
 about to make things right by concurrent majorities, and fix 
 every interest, so that they will protect each other against an- 
 tagonists. Now, let us test the matter, and see whether there 
 are antagonists in different interests. To prove the matter, let 
 us throw away all the mechanics, and not allow them to live 
 amongst us, if their interests are antagonistic to all the rest, 
 and, so fully so, that we may test Mr. Calhoun's opinions. If 
 it were not for the mechanic we could not have a knife and fork 
 to eat with, a plate to eat from, a house to live in, a tool to fell 
 the timber, a wagon, a carriage, a ship to sail in, a book to read 
 in, or paper on which to write. Is not the whole world identi- 
 fied with the mechanic, and all portions and classes of the world 
 from the infant to the grave, benfitted by them ? The people's 
 interests are everywhere identified largely by the preaching of 
 the Gospel, for if it were not for the preachers, the people would 
 soon become heathens, and it takes them all they can do to keep 
 them from getting to be heathens. The lawyers are very need • 
 ful, and the people are benefitted by having them to aid and 
 protect them against fraud, and placing the ignorant on au 
 equality with the more wise and intelligent. For, if a man does 
 not know how to proceed to protect himself in his rights, he 
 can go to a lawyer and be protected with as much mtellect as 
 the country affords. The lawyer may be considered one of the 
 equalizing powers to place all on an equality, so far as jorotect- 
 ing their rights. It is to the interest of the lawyer to protect 
 his client, because he pays him ; he has to prepare himself to 
 
87 
 
 understand how to protect his client ; so, it is to the interest of 
 the citizen to employ him, and the interest of the lawyer to pro- 
 tect his client, and increase his practice, so both interests are 
 identified. Doctors prepare themselves to relieve pain, and re- 
 store speedy health to their patients. 
 
 The one who is sick wants tlie relief from the doctor ; and 
 he is desirous of giving every relief he can, to secure prac- 
 tice. Competition rules all the charges of the mechanics 
 and doctors. It will be seen that every branch of business, 
 from the constable to the President, from the magistrates to 
 the judo-es, from the farmer to the sailor, from the merchant 
 to the manufacturer, make their interests all identified with 
 the welfare of the whole union of the world. Take any one 
 of these from us, out of the world, and their loss would be 
 felt by the whole community. And it is necessary to pro- 
 tect all and every one of these interests, and all that is neces- 
 sary, is to make laws to protect each individuarl in their just 
 rights against what is wrong ; and when a govenment has 
 done tlmt, it is all that the government has any right or 
 need to do. Competition in numbers engaged in each dif- 
 ferent business, will regulate the value of everything. And 
 this is the law that God has fixed, in place of Calhoun's 
 numerical and concurrent majorities. Competition in plenty 
 or scarcity, of either labor or articles, will govern prices. 
 This is the never erring law God has made, and no other 
 law can stand in competition with it. So it will be seen 
 that the antagonist that Mr. Calhoun has been fighting all 
 this time, is nothing but wind, without foundation. 
 
 But let us examine into this principle, created in man, 
 whether a regard for his own interests produces the princi- 
 ple of antagonism or not ; and see if man will follow the law 
 of God, if it is not the very principle that would prevent 
 antagonisms. Now, I contend that there are but two antag- 
 onists in the world — one is right and the other is wrong. 
 Eight cannot be wrong, and wrong cannot be right. Is it 
 rio-ht that a man have a greater regard for his own farm, 
 
wife and family, than for another man's farm, wife and 
 family , and would it not be more apt to prevent antagonisms 
 than if it were otherwise? Is it not right that a woman 
 should have a greater regard for her own husband than an- 
 other woman's husband ? Is it not right that a woman 
 should have a greater regard for her own child, than for 
 another woman's child ? Was it ever otherwise known on 
 earth ? God has created this principle in man to be satis- 
 fied with whatever He saw fit to bestow on him. Is it not 
 right for a cow to have a greater regard for her own calf 
 than for another cow's calf ? Is it not right for a mare to 
 have a greater regard for her own colt, than for another 
 mare's colt ? Is it not right that a bird should have a great- 
 er regard for her own brood, than for the brood of another 
 bird ? Is it not right that the hawk, owl or eagle should 
 have a greater regard for their own brood, than for the 
 brood of any other birds ? If it were not so, they would eat 
 their own brood up, and their race would be lost. Lions, 
 panthers, bears, and all animals and birds, have their princi- 
 ples fixed in them, and we see it is very good, and all God's 
 creation satisfied with their own. Now, this principle being 
 one of the greatest and best gifts to man, to constitute his 
 happiness, Mr. Calhoun would make it one of the greatest 
 curses to man, throwing away every thing antagonistic to 
 each other. And this great antagonism, of which he spoke, 
 one interest against another, is just the contrary way to 
 what antagonism does exist. It always exists inside of its 
 own interest. 
 
 By a great many persons engaging in the same business, 
 they come into competition, one with another ; and this is 
 the means of reducing all things to their proper value. But 
 it is said that our interests are antagonistic to the North ; 
 that what is to their interest is an injury to us, and what- 
 ever is to our interest injures them. I think this assertion 
 is as equally erroneous as those others, and every word un- 
 true. But if the Union were destroyed, it would place us 
 
89 
 
 in prettj much tlie same fix as taking away all the mechan- 
 ics from us. Now, let us see what assertions were made by 
 our Southern politicians in 1832, to make the people dissat- 
 isfied with the Union we lived in, under the Constitution of 
 the United States. They asserted that the cotton grower 
 paid nearly all the tariff duties — at least forty dollars out of 
 every hundred dollars worth of cotton sold — and that it 
 went into the pockets of the North ; and if we would with- 
 draw from the North, we would have free trade, and no du- 
 ties to pay, and we would get more for our cotton. So they 
 brought up their figures to show how much more the people 
 of the South paid of the tariff duties than the North. 
 When I looked at their statistics I was utterly astonished. 
 I always knew their statements were false, but I never ima- 
 gined they were so utterly void of truth — the shadow of a 
 foundation of truth. But as proof of what I say, I will 
 produce their statistics, which they brought up to prove 
 their statements. The exports of the Northern and South- 
 ern products stand thus : 
 
 Export of Northern products, - - - $97,346,973 
 Export of Southern products,. - - - 218,895,450 
 
 Now, they asserted that as we exported so many millions, 
 that we paid that much more tariff than the North. It will 
 be seen that there was never one cent of tariff duties col- 
 lected from any exportation either North or South — all 
 passed out free of duty. For the Constitution provides that 
 no tax or duty shall be laid on any article exported from 
 any State. No article shall enter free in one port and pay 
 duties in another, and that all duties shall be uniform 
 throughout the United States. This shows clearly that no 
 tariff was, or could be, collected on exportations, and, that 
 all the North exported, went out free, and all the South 
 exported, went out free ; so that there was not one word 
 of truth in their statement. The truth was,we exported 
 two hundred and eighteen millions, while the North ex- 
 ported only ninety-seven millions ; so the South had the 
 
90 
 
 benefit of sending out that much more, free, than the 
 !North. The South, in place of being injured by the ex- 
 portation, as they said, was largely benefitted, and they 
 never paid one cent of duties on the cotton, for it passes free 
 of duty in England, and (I think) in all other governments. 
 And the reason why it goes free, is, because it answers as 
 an article of exchange ta pay debts, the same as gold and 
 silver. Had we preferred, we could have sold our cotton to 
 England for gold and silver. And why did we not ? The 
 reason is this — the North are large consumers. It was said 
 that they were no benefit to us, and were getting rich off of 
 US, without our receiving any benefit from them. Let us 
 see if there is any truth in their statement. I will admit 
 that the ^Northern cities are rich, but the question is, do 
 they get all their riches from the South, or, is it the location 
 of the country that makes the Northern cities rich ? Let us 
 see. In the first place, there is a ridge of mountains run- 
 ning from the Potomac to the Mississippi Valley, which pre- 
 vents the transportation of goods across those mountains 
 by the Southern cities. And the North, having lakes, ca- 
 nals and railroads, have access to all those Northern States. 
 They furnish twenty-three millions of people with com- 
 merce, beside us. They can afford to buy a large quantity 
 of goods, because they have a market in which to sell them. 
 This is the reason why the Northern cities have gotten rich, 
 and not merely the trade of the South. If Charleston were 
 to buy a large quantity of goods, like the Northern cities, 
 they could only sell, so far as the wants of the people de- 
 manded, up to the mountains ; and, if they sold any more, 
 they would have to ship them round to the North, or New 
 Orleans, before they could sell them. So, it will be seen, it 
 is the location of the country that gives them the advantage, 
 and not merely the trade of the South, and that the state- 
 ments they made in that respect were wrong. But, as the 
 Southern politicians assert, is the North no benefit to 
 the South, and their interests antagonistic to ours ? Let us 
 
91 
 
 see whether that be ' true or not. In the first place, the 
 South is a producer of cotton, and the more consumers she 
 lias, the greater will be the value of cotton. 
 
 jSTow, the North is a great consumer, being twenty-three 
 millions in number, and will consume a great deal of our 
 cotton. They purchase the largest portion of the goods 
 used, both in the North and South, and, consequently, have 
 large payments to make whenever they buy the goods. It 
 is easier to get cotton than gold and silver. They do not 
 only buy cotton for their own consumtion, but to pay for 
 the goods which they buy in the foreign markets. And, in 
 this way, they become large competitors with England and 
 France, in keeping up the price of cotton. For nothing, in 
 this world, rules the price of anything but competition* 
 The number to sell and the number to buy, rules and regu- 
 lates the value of all things. This is a principle that God, 
 himself, has fixed, and no one can alter it. When any busi- 
 ness is very piofitable, a great many will engage in it un- 
 til the competition amongst them will bring down the pro- 
 fits to their proper value. 
 
 Now, it will be seen, that the quantity of cotton con- 
 sumed by the North, both for their own consumption, and 
 to meet the payments for goods bought, makes them large 
 competitors with England and France, and in place of being 
 an injury are a great benefit to us in that way. If the 
 South chooses to sell her cotton to England, she could get 
 gold and silver for it, and shave it off to the North at a 
 profit, to meet their payments in other countries. Many of 
 the merchants, who trade wath England, sell to the North- 
 ern merchants, and, if they do not give as much as the 
 market of England justifies, we are not forced to sell to 
 them ; so that the South is completely independent in that 
 relpect. Now, it will be seen by those views, that instead 
 of the North being an injury to us in this respect, we are 
 largely benefitted by them, and that all these stories about 
 their interests and ours being antagonistic, are untrue, and 
 
92 
 
 without foundation. Let us look a little further, and see if 
 the interests of the Xorth and South are not so identfied 
 that they cannot be separated -svithout great injury to both 
 parties, one as much as the other. And see if the people 
 of the North and South should not both at once withdraw 
 themselves from this unnatural war, brought on by those 
 politicians by their false and fraudulent statements. They 
 now have the people under their military power, and are 
 forcing them to kill, rob and destroy one another. 
 
 But we will proceed to show the great identity of our 
 interest, as I first began to show the interest and benefit the 
 South derives from a union with the Xorth. I will con- 
 tinue to carry that out, aiid afterwards show the interest the 
 North has in a Union with the South. We will say that one 
 woman can, by making nothing else, make four bales of 
 cotton, weighing each four hundred pounds, this at ten dol- 
 lars per hundred would bring $160, with $160, we can 
 buy sixteen hundred yards of osnaburgs from the manufac- 
 turers of the North, which amount would require ten hands 
 to card and spin — this will save the labor of nine hands; 
 they making cotton at $160 each would give $1,441 by 
 having access to the manufactures of the North. But 
 suppose we should buy the common shirting, we could buy 
 thirty-two hundred yards for $ 1 60, which would save the 
 labor of nineteen hands, who, at $160 per year, would 
 make $2,960. It might be said that we could get these 
 advantages from the manufactories in England, but if we 
 had to depend on England alone for those qualities of goods, 
 they would be sure to sell them much higher. The great 
 number of manufactories at the North has created a suffi- 
 cient competition to cause them to sell as low as the price 
 they give for cotton will justify. They prevent the foreign 
 markets from extorting from us, and the foreign markets 
 protect us from extortion by the home markets, and in this 
 way we are benefitted in both ways. Again, the North can 
 
93 
 
 make as miicli corn on one acre as we can make on four, so 
 that they can raise four hogs with the same labor we can 
 raise one, and can sell four times as cheap as we can afford 
 to sell. Thus, bv buying hogs from the Xorth, we save the 
 labor of four hands to raise cotton. They can raise four 
 horses with the same labor that we can raise one, therefore 
 we can buy from them four times as cheap as we can raise, 
 and this gives us an extra amount of hands with which to 
 raise cotton. They can raise four head of cattle with the 
 same labor we can raise one; four times as much leather, 
 and can afford to sell us shoes, ready-made, four times as 
 cheap as we could make them at home. Tliey can sell us 
 bacon, lard, beef, flour, and every other article of eatables 
 of every kind, four times as cheap as we can raise them. 
 And when we buy, it saves that much labor that we can 
 apply to raising cotton. Again, if a severe drought or some 
 disaster were to take place in the South so tliat we were 
 likely to be in great want for provisions — under the union 
 we have a large territory of rich lands, producing so much 
 provisions that we could get a supply of provisions at all 
 times at a cheap rate without having to go over the seas, 
 for them, and if we did go, they would not have them to 
 spare. These and many other benefits we derive from our 
 interest with the North, so numerous that it is not necessary 
 to mention them. And as the Constitution of the United 
 States has provided that no tax or duty shall be laid on any 
 article exported from any State, and that no imposition 
 duties or restrictions shall be laid by any State upon the 
 property of the United States, nor the property of any par- 
 ticular State, it secures free trade to foreign markets, and 
 also to each State in the Union. 
 
 Now why did our secessionists tell us that if we went out 
 of the Union we would have free trade, when, under the 
 Constitution, we had as free trade as could be created ? 
 Has one promise they made us been fulfilled I We hare no 
 trade at all. They said that we would get goods cheaper ; 
 
94 
 
 has that been true? Thej said we would have no war. 
 "When they called out volunteers they said it was to 
 protect our homes and firesides. How long did they get to 
 stay at their homes and firesides? I leave that for the 
 people to decide for themselves. 
 
 But as I liave shown what advantages the South gains by 
 a union with the North, let us see what interests the North 
 receives by a union with the South, In the first place she 
 is largely benefitted by our cotton, both for her own clothing 
 and for merchandize, and for profitable employment in 
 manufactories. In the next place, all this surplus provision, 
 cattle, horses, hogs, beef, lard, butter, shoes, saddles, and a 
 thousand articles they do not need for themselves, would be 
 lost to them if it were not for the trade with the South. In 
 the first place, the South furnishes the cotton which keeps 
 up the manufactories at the North, and employs a great 
 many laborers and a great capital, and aids in keeping up 
 merchandising. This builds up cities and towns, and those 
 cities and towns with our cities and towns become great 
 consumers, with the planters of the South, of horses, hogs 
 and provisions of every kind. This furnishes a market for 
 all they make over and above what they need. Tliey buy 
 also from the mechanic, shoes, saddles, bridles, carriages, 
 harness, wagons, nails, iron, axes, hoes in immense quan- 
 tities, for which they would have no use were it not for the 
 market of the South. So that the interest of the North is 
 
 as much dependent on the South as the South is on the 
 North. I think it is not necessary to say any thing mor e 
 
 on the subject. 
 
 This shows that the interests of each section is completely 
 identified with the other, and not antagonistic, and that all 
 those interests are diff'erent and at diff'erent places, yet they 
 are all needed, and answer a proper purpose, and benefit all 
 j)arties. Every interest is a benefit to the community, and 
 needed, or they would not exist. It is the very need of 
 them that brings them into existence ; if they were not 
 
95 
 
 made. So tliey all agreed that tliey would quit doing any- 
 thing for the body. The legs agreed that they would not 
 carry the body any longer ; the arms would not work any 
 longer to feed and clothe the body ; the throat would not 
 swallow any more for the body; But it was not long before 
 the legs found out that they were not able to walk and carry 
 the body ; the arms were not able to work, and the throat 
 found itself in a bad condition. So they all soon found out 
 that it was through the strength and nourishment they re- 
 ceived through the body, they were able to do what they 
 did. So, I think, Mr. Calhoun's followers will soon find out 
 that they are in the same situation as the legs, arms and 
 mouth, so far as interests are concerned. Before the war, 
 they said we needed nothing , but, since the war, we find 
 that we need evei-ything, but the war. But, from these re- 
 marks, I must not be understood to justify Lincoln and his 
 Abolition party, or those secessionists ; one is as much out 
 of the Union as the other. Their principles are both the 
 same. For the Lincoln party claims the right by acts of 
 legislation and acts of majorities, to emancipate the African 
 property. Now, if they have the right to emancipate one 
 kind of property, they have the right to emancipate all — 
 which is the very principle contended for by the secession- 
 ists, If that principle were established, the Constitution 
 would not be worth the paper on which it is printed. There- 
 fore, I think, that Lincoln's party and Davis' party are both 
 in concert. If Lincoln should conquer, the - people would 
 be no nearer under the Constitution than if Davis' should 
 conquer. All rights, liberties, privileges and property se- 
 cured to the people would be taken from them. 
 
 From these views, it will appear that every interest that 
 exists, does depend, more or less, on the aid and assistance 
 of all the others, like the head, legs, arms, mouth and body 
 throughout. Take away the legs, arms and head, and the 
 body would be of very little use ; and take the body and 
 the head, the legs and arms would be of little use. Just so, 
 
96 
 
 needed, tliej would not remain in existence, but would die 
 of their own accord. Mr. Calhoun's philosophy, through- 
 out, is like the fable of the head, legs, arms and mou^th 
 forming a conspiracy against the body. They asserted that 
 the body did nothing, while the legs carried the body where- 
 ever it went ; the arms worked to furnish food and clothing 
 for the body ; the mouth chewed and the throat swallowed 
 the food for the body, while it consumed everything they 
 without manufacturers and consumers, our surplus cotton, 
 over and above what we need for our own use, would be of 
 no use; without merchants, ships and sailors, we could not 
 be put in possession of all the luxuries God has provided for 
 the benefit of man. For God caused one portion of the 
 world to produce one luxury, while he caused another part 
 of the world to produce another luxury ; so that it was ne- 
 cessary to have merchants, ships and sailors, so that we may 
 be put in possession of all the different luxuries provided 
 for man. Mr. Calhoun's philosophy is the most false philo- 
 sophy I have ever seen put on paper. And, whenever his 
 principles are attempted to be carried out, it produces de- 
 struction to life, liberty and property. Look at his policy 
 in regard to the United States Bank, what destruction it 
 brouglit on all classes, at home and abroad. And why such 
 a policy should be adopted by men of intellect, is astonish- 
 ing; and as so much injury was received by the commercial 
 world, at home and abroad, and by all classes of the com- 
 munity. It will, perhaps, be proper to examine into the 
 cause, why and how the injury was produced. In the first 
 place, let us see what is the use of money ? We do not eat 
 it, neither do we wear it. Why, then, is so great a value 
 placed on money ? It is because it answers as a medium of 
 exchange for anything we want to buy, and that is the only 
 use we have for it, Now, the United States Bank furnished 
 money that answered every purpose (for that use for which 
 it would pass) all over the United States, and answered as 
 an article of exchange for all the purposes that gold and 
 
97 
 
 silver could do. It paid taxes, tariff duties for public lands, 
 and would pass in England and in France. For it would 
 buy cotton, or anything else they wished to buy in the 
 United States. So it answered as an article of exchange for 
 anything we wanted to buy, better than gold or silver, be- 
 cause the banks had so arranged that all the solvent banks 
 could give checks on the Bank of the United States, and 
 they could transfer those checks by letter, or travel with 
 them himself, without any encumbrance of weight, or any 
 danger of being robbed. And as these checks would an- 
 swer as an article, of exchange, with which to buy anything 
 he wanted, or pay any debt, it answered a much better pur- 
 pose than gold and silver. In addition to this, the people, 
 under the government of the Constitution of the United 
 States, being so secure in all their lives and liberty, they 
 had increased in wealth and prosperity to such a degree, 
 that there could not have been a sufficient quantity of 
 gold and silver to answer the purpose as an article of 
 exchange, for the transaction of their business. So that 
 it really became necessary that some plan should be adopt- 
 ed, by which to supply this want. This bank answered every 
 purpose that could be desired, by uniting with the other 
 banks in giving and receiving checks ; so that commerce 
 was accommodated, and prosperity was increasing to an 
 extent never before known. 
 
 This bank served another important purpose. It received 
 all the public treasures free of charge, and also paid out all the 
 claims against the United States free of charge, which saved a 
 large amount of expense to the United States. In addition to 
 this, the Bank of the United States was responsible if they 
 squandered any of the funds, or undertook to defraud the 
 United States, and could be made responsible for all moneys 
 placed in their hands, for they were solvent. But what is the 
 situation of the country under the Lincoln and Calhoun parties. 
 Since that bank has been destroyed, how many irresponsible 
 men have been placed in offices as collectors, paymasters and 
 
98 
 
 receivers, at high wages, throwing a heavy expense on the 
 Government, that did not exist under the United States bank- 
 ing arrangement. How much fraud is practiced, and how 
 many have run oflf with thousands of the public money ? This 
 is all a loss, and has to be made up by taxirig the people. 
 Although the loss was heavy in all these things, yet it is not to 
 be compared to the loss of the people in the destruction of 
 their commerce "svith the world at the time the Bank of the 
 United States was destroyed. The people were in as pros- 
 perous a condition as they ever had been, and doing well. The 
 United States bank, with the aid and assistance of the other 
 banks, could furnish money enough to carry on all the transac- 
 tions of the people, and furnish an article of exchange for all 
 their trading purposes, and it appeared that, owing to the 
 increase of wealth, all the money of the United States and all 
 the money of the different banks was needed to carry out the 
 common transactions of their business. At the time that the 
 United States Bank was destroyed, Mr. Calhoun and his party 
 had a law passed that nothing but gold and silver should be 
 taken in payment of public dues. Now, this not only deprived 
 the people of the quantity of money in the Bank of the United 
 States, but also placed the other banks in a position in which 
 they could not furnish money to the people with which to 
 carry on their business. It placed the banks in such a situation 
 that they had to furnish all the gold and silver to pay the public 
 dues. Mr. Calhoun and his party said that this law was passed 
 to prevent the Government from bankruptcy. But what does 
 Mr. Calhoun mean by the Government ? He must mean the 
 officers who received their pay in gold and silver ; so he made 
 two parties in his legislation — the people one l^arty, the officers 
 the other. He provided that the officers should be paid in gold 
 and silver; but in what condition did he leave the people? 
 They passed a law that all foreign importations should be 
 allowed thirty days' credit, by giving bond and security for the 
 payment of the tariff duties. This gave them a chance to sell 
 their goods for bank bills, and all they had to do was to call on 
 the banks for the gold and silver with which to pay the tariff 
 duties. The banks had to furnish gold and silver to pay for all 
 
99 
 
 the public lands, all the post office dues, and all kinds of public 
 debts. And as their charters only allowed them to issue three 
 paper dollars for one of gold they had at the time of the issue? 
 and draws were continually making upon them, it was inipossi. 
 ble for them to furnish the people money to carry on their 
 transactions with each other. The cotton merchant could not 
 get money to buy cotton ; they failed to pay their merchants 
 in this country — failed to pay each other ; our merchants failed 
 to pay the foreign merchants ; confidence in the banks were 
 lost, and the confidence of all classes was lost. All this was 
 done by passing those laws. 
 
 Now, the domg away with the United States Bank removed 
 a large amount of capital from the use of the people, that they 
 needed, but it would not have done so much harm as it did, had 
 it not been for the making of two parties in the payment 
 of money. For he secured the oflicers in the payment of gold 
 and silver, and, by that means, crippled the banks. If the gov- 
 ernment, or the officers of government, who passed those bad 
 laws, had taken the notes of the specie-paying banks, the banks 
 could still have furnished paper money for all purposes of trade, 
 and the people might still have gotten along. But that law 
 was completely making war on the people and the banks, and 
 destroying the prosperity of both. Kow, you see what great 
 evil was brought on the people by making two parties. And 
 it is doing the same thing now, by making the South one party 
 and the North another. The Constitution of the United States 
 makes no parties. Whatever right a citizen has at the South, 
 the citizen of the North has the same permanently secured to 
 him. But the whole theory of Mr. Calhoun"s philosophy is to 
 create parties, and array one party against another. Accord!- 
 ing to his philosophy, he makes the United States Government 
 one party and the State governments another party, each hav- 
 ing a right to decide for itself as to the extent, of its powers, , 
 and array these two parties as antagonists, one against another.. 
 He does not represent them one and the same thing — ^both ere., 
 ated for the protection of the people in all their rights, liberties 
 and privileges — the one to transact the national affairs, and re- 
 gulate commercial affairs of the people, and the other to re^u- 
 
100 
 
 late domestic affair.*, both those constitutions uniting together, 
 for the same purpose. But he represents those two govern- 
 ments as two antagonists, each trying to usurp the most power 
 and before he gets done explaining the conditions of those two 
 antagonists, he gets them in perfect conflict. But what still 
 seems strange, each one has the right to decide for themselves 
 the extent of their power, having no lawful arbiter between 
 them. He then undertakes to show how those disputes must 
 be settled. One is, by forming an alliance with a certain com- 
 bination of interests, the nearest assimilated together, to form 
 parties for the j^rotection of their interests against the antago- 
 nism of all other interests. For he concluded that all interests 
 were antagonists against each other, which I have shown to be 
 false. But he admits that some interests ai'e more nearly iden- 
 tified than others, and with those two parties of interest he cre- 
 ates one party against another, and, in this way, each party 
 strives to gain the majoi'ity, and, by that majority, protect them- 
 selves against the antagonists of the other interests. 
 
 Now, this is the manner in which the States have to resist 
 the antagonists of the Constitution of the United States, but he 
 calls it the General Government, or means, rather, the legisla- 
 tion of Congress, which has no power or authority outside the 
 Constitution. But he represents that they have the right to 
 decide for themselves as to the extent of their jiower, and the 
 only way we had to protect ourselves was to collect parties, 
 and resist them by acts of majorities. 
 
 Thus, by creating parties by a combination of interests 
 nearest identified with each other, we might protect ourselves 
 ao-ainst the antagonists of the opposite interests. ISTow this 
 would be protecting ourselves agiiinst something that never did 
 exist, for there is no antagonism in indifferent interest. All 
 interests are needed to aid and assist each other, and there is no 
 antao-onism of interests except what originated in the mind of 
 Mr. Calhoun, and this is the manner of his whole philosophy. 
 This is one of the remedies he proposes, by which the State 
 crovernments may protect themselves against the encroachments 
 of the General Government. But he admits that this of itself 
 would not do, He would organize all the interests to better 
 
101 
 
 aid the carrying ont this wonderful scheme, and he wonld fix a 
 concurrent majority of interests and have it so fixed that, before 
 any law could be passed, all the interests would have to give 
 their consent. But if no consent could be gotten from all, he 
 would stop the action of government altogether, and this 
 would force them all to a compromise. Every one would give 
 up some of his interests rather than have no government. He 
 also brings in the courts and juries to represent his plan, or as 
 a model of his plan of government. He says that, although 
 the twelve jurymen must all agree before a verdict can be 
 brought in, they may all agree at first, but after reasoning 
 together, one will give up part of his opinion, and then another, 
 until they all come to a compromise and all agree. He says 
 this plan of settling disputes had given better satisfaction than 
 any other that has ever been adopted. But let us see if this 
 model of government "will represent his. In the first place, no 
 one is allowed to sit as a juryman if he has any interest in the 
 case, or has expressed his opinion before he hears the case 
 tried. Now, in the case of Mr. Calhoun's figure, none of the 
 party has been elected to takePcare of any other interest than 
 his own, and before he Avas elected he woiild have to express 
 his opinion and be elected on that express opinion. But if that 
 candidate should compromise those interests he was elected .to 
 protect, how could he meet his constituents ? Would he not 
 rather see the government destroyed ? Now, could any man 
 have a regard for the welfare of his countiy who would try to 
 adopt such principles as these for the standard of his govern- 
 ment ? It will be seen that his philosophy is built and founded 
 on antagonism. He makes the State governments and the United 
 States Government antagonists, when the principles of each 
 are the same. The Constitutions of each State ought precisely 
 to agree, because the officers in each State are bound by oath, 
 or affirmation, to support and defend the Constitution of the 
 United States, notwithstanding any constitution or law in any 
 State to the contrary. Now, every officer in every State has to 
 swear to support and defend the Constitution of his own State 
 as well as the Constitution of the United States — they surely 
 ought to agi-ee and not be antagonistic. It seems to me that 
 
102 
 
 the opinion advanced is the most unreasonable and the furthest 
 from right of any principles I ever saw put on paper. The 
 other principles he has set forth as protectors of right against 
 wrong are equally erroneous, if not more so. One of his 
 remedies was separate State action — every State to decide for 
 itself— choose its own mode and manner of redress — and counter- 
 legislation. This would be a State carrying itself as a party 
 against all the States, and at the same time pretending to be a 
 member of the Union. Now, the word union means one, it 
 does not mean two or parties — it means one united agreement to 
 give equal rights to all the members, and the written agree- 
 ment shows what these rights are. But Mr. Calhoun's philo- 
 sophy has no union at all, makes nothing but parties, and the 
 interest of each party to oppose the others. Now if we had 
 no better security for our rights than one party against another 
 party, we would have no security at all, because one party 
 might gain the ascendency to-day, and put you in possession of 
 your rights, and the other party gain the ascendency to-morrow 
 and take your rights from you. It would be like throwing a 
 cork upon the sea — it might be h^e to-day, but there would be 
 no certainty where it would be to-morrow, or whether you 
 would ever see it again. For, according to his philosophy, 
 there was no lawful arbiter, to protect your rights, appointed. 
 If you had not a party strong enough you had no protection — 
 and this party, formed out of a combination of mterests, is 
 antagonistic to every other. His whole platform was to create 
 parties. 
 
 Out of the words Federal and National, he made two par- 
 ties, when they meant the same thing. The words Federal, 
 National and Union, mean the same thing, so do the words 
 united, consolidated and cemented. He made parties of all 
 these words, as though they all meant different things, while 
 they are the same in substance. The word State means the ter- 
 ritory or boundary separating the one from the other. It will 
 apply to the people, acting under their constitutional authority, 
 by law, to the extent and boundary of the territory, which 
 unitedly means the same. The words consolidated and united 
 mean the same, for the word united means the agreement, by 
 
103 
 
 which all the members united together agreed to be governed 
 themselves, and all others. This was consolidating the agree- 
 ment into one joint agreement, and this made a confederated 
 government, and means, that the signers to this agreement re- 
 present our National government. But Mr. Calhoun makes 
 those words all great antagonists to each other. His principles 
 array the whole human family as antagonists, from the cradle to 
 the grave, while I have shown that God has arranged every- 
 thing in harmony and unity ; and has created everything to act 
 in concert, for the benefit of man. All that is necessery, as far 
 as governm-ent matters are concerned, is to make laws to pro- 
 tect every man in his just rights against wrong. This can only 
 be done by creating laws, courts and juries to decide between 
 the disputing parties, as we have done under the provisions of 
 the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun's remedy is entirely opposed to the Constitution 
 of the States or the United States. He is for every State to 
 be separate from every other State — the Legislature to have 
 complete and absolute control over the lives, liberties and pro- 
 perty of the people — the people to have no course but to obey, 
 and the Legislature under no obligation but their own will, and 
 will admit of no allegiance to any other authority than their 
 own, or those to whom they transfer their allegiance. Now, 
 the only remedy provided against unjust legislation by Mr. Cal- 
 houn's works, is the elective franchise. This elective franchise 
 has to be obtained out of different combinations of interests, 
 all antagonists, but the nearest identified, before you can get 
 your party strong enough, to coxmterlegislate for you. All this 
 time you must submit to this unjust legislation, and have no 
 course but to obey. But, should you fail to get your party 
 strong enough, to counterlegislate for you, then place yourself in 
 some attitude to get a compromise. Now, compromisors have 
 to take whatever they can get, not what they ought to get, and 
 being in the minority, and having no other way in which to be 
 protected, he would accept whatever they thought proper to 
 give him, if that was nothing. 
 
 But Mr. Calhoun brings in another remedy — that is, secession. 
 But suppose the Legislature would pass a law that you should 
 not secede, you have no course left but to obey. And if you 
 
104 
 
 speak against any act they pass, or resist, in any manner what- 
 ever, the penalty is death. What coiild be gained by secession? 
 We have an example before us. We were promised free trade, 
 but we have no trade, not even with the adjoining States, un- 
 less the Legislature of each State permits us. We were prom- 
 ised that we would get goods very cheap ; we cannot get any 
 goods unless we pay for them from ten to one hundred times as 
 much as we paid before this great remedy, secession, was in- 
 troduced. We were told that everything we needed would be 
 furnished for much less than we were getting them, but that we 
 needed nothing from others, and everybody was dependent on 
 us for our cotton. But, it seems that we need a great deal from 
 others, and that, although we have the cotton, we have not the 
 manufactories to furnish a supply, and the people cannot get a 
 supply of cards to make the cloth at home. 
 
 We were told that there would be no war — that has proved 
 to be untrue. We were told that there would be no taxes to 
 pay — which has proved to be untrue. All those calamities have 
 befallen us, since this remedy, secession, has taken place. And 
 a debt created over our heads, which, it will take everything 
 we have to pay, if it ever is paid. Now, this is the true situa- 
 tion brought on the people by adopting those principles, and 
 resorting to those remedies adopted by Mr. Calhoun and his 
 followers. It was impossible that any one, or all those princi- 
 ples, could have given protection against any of those evils, of 
 which he complained. It involved us in war, and we were 
 largely in the minority. According to the law of nations, when 
 we seceded, it deprived us of any right to any of the public 
 property ; so we left the North in undisputed possession of all 
 the shipping, navy, arms, ammunition and fortifications, except 
 those that we took from them by force, (and they were very 
 few,) and all the public property of every desci'iption, leaving 
 us nothing to fight with, and little to fight for, but separate 
 States Rights and the right of secession, which has brought all 
 this distress and destruction upon us, without even the show or 
 appearance of benefit ; but, on the contrary, every appearance 
 of total destruction. 
 
 Now, I think it is time we should change our position, and 
 
105 
 
 not follow those leaders any longer. Now, the Lincoln Aboli- 
 tionist party are acting on the same principles as the States 
 Rights party, and they are out of the Union as much as Davis 
 and his secession party. To show that they both agree pre- 
 cisely in principle, without the shadow of difference, we 
 see, that in the Convention of 1832, the South Carolina Con- 
 vention declared that every State had a right to make any law 
 it pleased — a right to decide for themselves as to the extent of 
 their obligations — and that, after once declared, the citizen had 
 no right but to obey. The Convention in Cincinnati declared 
 that it shoilld not be denied that a State had the right to eman- 
 cipate. The third Convention, called before the election of 
 Lincoln, Sol^thern and Northern Democrats, as they called them- 
 selves, (but had not a particle of Democracy about them,) de- 
 clared that a State had a right to take everything from the peo- 
 ple. Now, these are the principles contended for by the States 
 Rights followers of Mr. Calhoun. 
 
 Now, let us see the principles adopted by the Abolitionists. 
 They have not held conventions, nor made public declarations. 
 This is the reason why I have confined myself so much to the 
 declarations of the Southern politician's State Right principles, 
 for they have put on paper their jDrinciples, held in convention, 
 and they cannot dodge out of them. But I will now show by 
 the acts of the Abolitionists that they both act on the same 
 principles of State Right sovereignty, and also show that they 
 went out of the Union. For they did not go out by secession, 
 but by acts of treason, in opposition to the provisions of the 
 Constitution. And those acts corresponded with the declara- 
 tions of the Convention of South Carolina, in 1832, which gave 
 a State the right to make any law they pleased, and be under 
 no obligation but their own will — choose their own mode and 
 manner of redress. Now, the Abolitionists of ten States passed 
 a law, that if a servant, or person bound to service, in another 
 State, escaped to their State, they should be free. And if any 
 person attempted to secure such servant, or person boimd to 
 service, or any one aided or assisted in recovering such servant, 
 or person bound to service, the person attempting to recover 
 or aiding and assisting to recover, shall be fined to a large ex- 
 tent, and imprisoned. 
 
106 
 
 Now, this was assuming power on the part of the State, to 
 make any law they pleased, and this was choosing their own 
 mode and measure of redress, exactly in accordance with the 
 acts of the Convention of South Carolina, in 1832. The Con- 
 vention at Cincinnati declared that it should not be denied that 
 they had a right to emancipate. Now, this Cincinnati Conven- 
 tion provided for the support of the Abolitionists as strong as 
 language could express — professing, at the same time, that they 
 were opposing it. The last Convention, before the election of 
 Lincoln, for fear they had not made abolition strong enough, 
 declared that the State had the right to take everything from 
 the people, which the secession Abolitionists and the Lincoln 
 Abolitionists are domg, by robbing and killing the people, and 
 dragging them out, and forcing them to fight one another. And 
 all this to carry out the Abolition principles over the people, 
 and taxing them until they will take everything from them, as 
 well as declare they have a right so to do. This is the deplora- 
 ble condition in which the people are placed by those two po- 
 litical leaders. Now, both these pohtical leaders pretended 
 they were acting under, or in accordance with the Constitution 
 of the United States. But let us see if there is one word of 
 truth in any of their declarations. 
 
 Did the State have a right, under the Constitution, to make 
 any law they pleased ? Or had the State a right to emancipate 
 or take everything from the people ? The Constitution pro- 
 vides that citizens be secure in their person, papers, houses and 
 effects — they shall be preserved inviolable. It also provides 
 that no law or regulation shall be made, by any State, to dis- 
 charge a servant, or person bound to service, due to a citizen of 
 any other State. But if a servant, or person bound to service^ 
 escape to another State, they shall be bound to deliver up such 
 servant or person boimd to service. Now, this was the con- 
 tract, existing one with the other, all over the United States. 
 And the Constitution of the United States provides that no 
 State shall have power to impair the obligation of contracts. 
 This shows clearly that a State has not the power to pass any 
 law they think proper, nor have they the right to emancipate, 
 or take anything from the jjeople without full compensation. 
 
107 
 
 For the Constitution provides that no private property shall be 
 taken for public use without full compensation to the owner ; so 
 it seems that they neither have a right to emancipate, nor a 
 right to make any law they please, nor a right to take anything 
 from the people. But, under the Lincoln administration, and 
 under the Davis administration, they are using all this power. 
 
 Now, it will be seen, that the acts of those ten States — that 
 aided and assisted in electing Lincoln — were guilty of actual 
 treason. For, whenever any political party form themselves 
 into a combination, and create laws in opposition to the laws of 
 the government, imder which they live, and the courts decide 
 that such laws are illegal, unconstitutional, null and void — and> 
 after the decision of those courts, if they attempt to enforce 
 these laws they have created, it constitutes treason. Now, the 
 Court of the United States is set apart as the lawful arbiter, 
 and had decided that African property Avas property, and that 
 that kind of proj^erty had the same right, under the Constitu- 
 tion, in every State, to be protected the same as any other 
 property. 
 
 This decision was given in the Dred Scott case. Now, the 
 States, passing those acts after the decision of the Supreme 
 Court, were guilty, of treason, and were not entitled to any 
 vote in the Union. This is what brings in Lincoln as guilty of 
 treason. He has associated hmiself with those treasonable Ab- 
 olitionists, and is attempting to force the people of the South, 
 under those treasonable Abolitionists, who profess that it is 
 their intention to take from the South their African property. 
 And, in place of proceeding against these men by a legal pro- 
 cess, to show, by law, that those men, who had assumed that 
 they had the power to secede, and summoned them to appear 
 before the Court of the United States, to test whether they had 
 the right to secede, (for they claimed that they had the consti- 
 tutional right,) and, if they did not appear, the case would have 
 gone against them by default. But, if they had appeared, they 
 had a right to show cause, and a right to complain to the courts 
 against the proceedings of the Abolition party, and they had 
 the same right to redress wrongs. 
 
 But if any of the States, North or South, had committed 
 
108 
 
 treason, the courts had a right to decide. There can be no 
 doubt but that the Northern States committed treason when 
 they passed the fugitive slave law, for the courts had already 
 decided that question. But the secession question had not 
 been decided, so that Lincoln had no right to declare war, 
 neither would have Congress had the right, unless the judges 
 had first decided that the Southern States had no right to 
 secede. If the courts had decided that the Southern States 
 had not the right to secede, and they still persisted in secession 
 after the decision of the court, then it would have been lega^ 
 for Congress to have declared war against the State of South 
 Carolina. But Lincoln took the responsibility on himself, as if 
 he were the government, and, together with his abolition trea- 
 soners, declared war against the State of South Carolina. The 
 other Southern States, seeing those treasonable attempts, by 
 force of arms, in place of using the law as they ought to have 
 done, roused the feelings of all the .other States, knowing that 
 if South Carolina was conquered by those Abolitionists, who 
 were out of the Union, it would be their time next. They 
 were compelled to come to the aid and assistance of South 
 Carolina, according to the agreement existing xmder the Con- 
 stitution, that we shall support and defend each other on any 
 account whatever — so all the States that assisted South Carolina 
 cannot be guilty of treason. 
 
 Now the foolish and treasonable act of South Carolina, fol- 
 lowing up the treasonable philosophy of John C. Calhoun, and 
 the treasonable acts of Lincoln and his Abolitionists, have 
 brought on all this destruction of life, liberty and property in 
 America. The philosophy of both is false, and they have no 
 foundation in the Constitution for either of their principles. 
 Now the proper course for South Carolina to have pursued was 
 to have protested the election of Lincoln, and denied the right 
 of vote to those ten States, that by their acts committed 
 treason, and to have brought the case in court to show and 
 prove that they had committed treason, and that they were not 
 entitled to any of the privileges or protection of the grovern- 
 ment, which the judges would have been compelled to have 
 decided in our favor, if we had remained in the Union. It 
 
109 
 
 would have also left in our possession all the shipping, navy, 
 arms, ammunition, territories, and all the public property of 
 every kind. 
 
 But to follow out Calhoun's philosophy, they must say 
 nothing about the North being out of the Union ; but South 
 Carolina must go out and leave those treasonable Abolitionists 
 in the undisputed possession of all the treasure, sliipping, navy, 
 arms and ammunition, leaving themselves without anything to 
 fight for or anything to fight with. All this was done to get 
 out of the Union as well as the Abolitionists. They then called 
 on the people to protect themselves against the hordes of Abo- 
 litionists without one dollar to equip them, except what they 
 begged or borrowed. And now they are about to take every 
 thing from the people, in taxes, to pay those enormous debts 
 and expenses that have been contracted. But this is nothing 
 to be compared with the hardships suffered by our true-hearted, 
 devoted and deluded soldiers, who have been dragged from 
 their homes — some sons from their parents, husbands from their 
 wives and little children, leaving them without any protection, 
 only their mother, to shift the best they can. A vast number 
 of fathers have lost their beloved sons, and a great many wives 
 have lost their husbands, and children left fatherless. Many 
 have been dragged into sickly swamps and all kinds of 
 exposure, besides being compelled to meet those, as enemies, 
 who, by i^roper management, might have been friends, to shoot 
 and kill each other — and for what ? all to establish one of the 
 grandest military monarchical governments the world can pro. 
 duce, under the name of liberty, under the pretence that their 
 object was to adopt a plan to protect the people against 
 antagonists of interests and evils that never did exist. But 
 might we not have good reason to suspect those two political 
 bodies of having some other object in view than they professed, 
 and especially when all those leaders were lawyers, and should 
 have been well acquainted with all the legal remedies existing 
 under the laws of the Constitution of the United States, for it 
 is the law created in the Constitution of the United States for 
 prohibiting and restricting all acts of legislation, both of the 
 States and the United States, from having any power to pass 
 
110 
 
 acts to take even the value of a pin from the people, because 
 those are the supreme laws, created by the true sovereigns, the 
 people themselves. And now; perhaps, I had better show the 
 course those pretended friends should and ought to have pur- 
 sued, if it had been their intention to do what they professed — 
 to protect us against the power claimed by the Abolitionists, 
 both as it respects their refusing to give up our African 
 property, and their refusmg to allow those who owned that kind 
 of property to move into their States or any of their territories. 
 These were three of the complaints laid against the Abolitionists 
 of the North. Now these charges seem to be justly founded, 
 and are a strict violation of the law. When a law or laws are 
 violated, what is the custom of all civilized nations but to apply 
 to the law for protection. For what purpose are laws made if 
 they are not made to protect right against wrong. Now it 
 appears that the laws of the Constitution of the United States 
 are so clear on all these cases that no misconstruction could be 
 placed on the meaning of them, for the Constitution of the 
 United States has made no distinction, as far as rights are con- 
 cerned, between any members of this Union, and has made 
 ample provision for the protection of each and every citizen, as 
 far as the Union does or may extend; for the Constitution 
 provides that the citizens of each State shall have free ingress 
 and egress to and from any other State, and a right to take his 
 property with him, and that no imposition duties or restrictions 
 shall be laid by one State on the property of the United States, 
 or either of them, and that no State should have power tO' 
 impair the obligation of contracts. Now all those obligations 
 could not be impaired by a State, so this law had already been 
 provided, for the protection of every citizen of the United 
 States, and there was no need for a convention to make any 
 other arrangement. And if there had been any State having 
 no power to make a law outside of the State, and could not 
 have made any law to act outside Of her own State, nor laws 
 impairing the obligation of contracts, what hindered our 
 Southern lawyers from knowing it ? This seemed as if their 
 object was to make the people dissatisfied with their govern- 
 ment, and that no provision had been made for their protection 
 
Ill 
 
 under the Constitution against the evils of which they coni- 
 plaiaed. For they said you could not get a State in a court, 
 and that they had a right to make any law they pleased, and 
 the people had no course but to obey. 
 
 Now let us see if any of those assertions are true — they are 
 like all their other assertions, false. In the first place, the 
 United States' Court is created the lawful arbiter of all cases 
 arising under the Constitution, and in all cases where a State 
 shall be a party that court shall have the original jurisdiction. 
 It is said you cannot sue the State. Suppose that I should take 
 my servant into one of those States, and some officer seizes my 
 servant, or any other person acting under the law of the State, 
 I would sue the individual, who took my property from me 
 forcibly, in the Court of the United States, for aU the trespasses 
 and damages necessary for such an offence. He would be com- 
 pelled to come forward and show cause why he has taken my 
 property from me, or the case will go against him by default. 
 But we will suppose that he attends and produces his authority, 
 under the law of his State, I will show by the Constitution of 
 the United States that I have a right secured to me, to move 
 into any other State and take my property ^vith me, and that 
 no imposition duties or restrictions shall be laid by any State 
 on the property of the United States or either of them — and 
 that was the contract agreed to by all the members of the 
 Union ; and, also, no State was to have the power to impair the 
 obligation or contracts. 
 
 Now, there cannot be any set of judges or juries found in 
 the United States, unless they wilfully and knowingly perjure 
 themselves, but would decide that a State had no power to pass 
 such a law, and that all such acts were null, void and no law. 
 Then down would all the laws go, created by the Abolitionists. ' 
 
 Now, why did our Southern politicians say that a State had a 
 right to emancipate, a right to make any law they pleased, and 
 a right to take everything from the people ? and why did they 
 bring up a bill proposing, as a compromise, that every State 
 shoxild have the right to come into the Union with or without 
 the privilege of restricting the owners of slave property by 
 acts of their majority. No, the Constitution gives no such 
 
112 
 
 right, for every State has to come into the Union under the 
 same agreement as the first. All officers have to take the same 
 oath — come under the same agreement with the citizens of each 
 State. They shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
 ties of the citizens in the several States. 
 
 Now, why did our Southern protectors, bemg lawyers, make 
 those assertions entirely in opposition to the proxasions of the 
 Constitution of the United States, and every one of them in 
 support of abolitionism, using words as strong as can be 
 expressed in support of every principle contended for by the 
 abolitionists. And, indeed, the very laws these Southern poli- 
 ticians created in their conventions, and also assisted in creating 
 in Congress, are the very same laws adopted by the abolition- 
 ists, and upon v/hich they have been acting all the time. This 
 proves that they are acting in concert together, both acting, 
 contrary to the principles of the government of the people 
 created for their peace and haj^piuess. And if their principles, 
 which support abolitionism, were established, they would 
 destroy every right, liberty and privilege secured to the people 
 imder the Constitution, as well to the North as to the South, 
 for they would be brought under the same despotism. Now 
 we see that there is a plain and easy way at law to protect us 
 and establish our rights to go into any State or territory, and 
 that no law nor regulation should be made by any State to dis- 
 charge a servant, or person bound to services, due to a citizen of 
 another State. But when they were told of a lawful remedy, 
 their answer was that they (the Abolitionists) paid no attention 
 to law, and how could you enforce a law against such a large 
 majority? But you must not forget that the Abolitionists paid 
 very good attention to the laws created by the Southern con- 
 ventions, and adopted them throughout, and our conventions 
 declared that they had the right to do so. But now I think I 
 can show that the plan of government under the Union is 
 almost the best arranged to protect against such majorities as 
 they speak of, that can be fixed by any government. Of course 
 I claim the decision of the court in the above cases. 
 
 We will suppose that the State, which passed these laws, 
 would not submit to the decisions of the court. The Presi- 
 
113 
 
 dent is sworn to see the laws of the Union faithfully execu- 
 ted, and the Judges are to require the President to execute 
 the laws in favor of the citizen, and put him in possession 
 of his property, with full damages. If the President re- 
 fused to do so, he could be deprived of his commission ; but 
 if he aided or assisted the State, in resisting the officer sent 
 to execute the law, he would be guilty of treason, and would 
 be liable to be tried and punished for treason, as well as 
 turned out of office, 
 
 Now, there being but one State to contend with, the offi- 
 cers of that State, who offered resistance, would perjure 
 themselves, and be guilty of treason ; and if any other State 
 should aid or assist, they would be guilty of treason. So 
 that, if South Carolina had first claimed the rights that were 
 secured to each citizen of the United States, and had those 
 rights acknowledged by the Supreme Court, we would have 
 been j ustifiable in going into war, if need had required it. 
 And, if they had done so, I have no doubt but that the peo- 
 ple would have unanimously, North and South, sustained 
 the decision of the Court. For the people would have 
 known what rights they were entitled to, and see at once, 
 that the Abolitionists had no right to take away their Afri- 
 can j)roperty, nor any otherproperty, by acts of majorities — • 
 nor prevent them from buying any property they should 
 choose, and moving that property where they pleased. 
 
 Every citizen has the right to decide for himself what 
 kind of property he shall own, and no party rights about it — ■ 
 all to b-3 governed by the principle of right ; all agreeing 
 to protect each other in their rights, contained in the Con- 
 stitution, which, I hope, they still will do, when we get the 
 right men in office, who will make their rights known to 
 them, which has not been done lately. 
 
 Now, as I have shown, in order to establish what the 
 rights of a citizen were, it was not necessary to have any 
 majorities in the case, as a case in court in one State would 
 establish the right of citizens in every State. And this is 
 
114 
 
 the way all cases of disputes are settled, in all governments ; 
 and the only way in which peace and harmony can be pre- 
 served by all classes of the community. But how different 
 a way does Mr. Calhoun's philosophy point out. Can any 
 good happen under his plans, or any remedy ever be ob- 
 tained against any evil ? If it could, it never has. Nothing 
 but destruction to life, liberty and property can, or will, fol- 
 low. But, suppose the object of these two parties is some- 
 thing else than they have professed, and that they have 
 some object that they have entirely concealed from all the 
 honest portion of the people, both oflBcers and privates. If 
 so, let us guess, or let us examine, and see what effect those 
 principles, introduced by those Southern Conventions, and 
 adopted by the Lincoln Abolitionists, would have upon the 
 rights of the people, and what effect it would have on the 
 government, and what benefits might be, at the end, con- 
 ferred on those head leaders. 
 
 In the first place, this Union, which is the government of 
 the people, can never be destroyed, unless you create par- 
 ties — and the liberties of the people cannot be taken away 
 unless you get them under military power. You must cre- 
 ate parties and array them against each other, and make them 
 enemies, or believe them enemies, before you can get the 
 people to consent to come under military power. Now, all 
 this has been done by the philosophy of Mr. Calhoun. He 
 makes the State one party, and the people another party. 
 He makes the United States government one party and tlie 
 State another party. All these parties he arrays, one 
 against another — first, on the plea of a very oppressive ta- 
 riff; the next, the slave question, and the dispute about set- 
 tling territory ; and next, lie places the United States Gov- 
 ernment and the State government in a great struggle, and 
 as antagonists against^each other. The United States Gov- 
 ernment was trying to absorb all the reserved rights of the 
 States. Mr. Calljoun sets himself as the great champion, 
 together with his party, to defend and protect the States in 
 
115 
 
 reserved rights, and declared that each State was a separate, 
 sovereign and independent government, and had a right to 
 decide for herself, choose her own mode and measure of re- 
 dress, an^ that no lawful arbiter could be found sufficiently 
 impartial to decide against the State, therefore, it was un- 
 provided for. 
 
 Now, these principles have been arrayed, brought up and 
 argued before the people bj those State protectors. The 
 first position they occupied was, to get the people to let 
 them call a convention to decide against the oppressive ta- 
 riff, wliere the South payed foi-ty dollars out of every hun- 
 dred dollars worth of cotton sold, and that it went into the 
 pockets of the North, without us receiving any benefit from 
 the North. Now, it was principally lawyers, governors and 
 members of Congress who spoke to the people, in the most 
 exciting manner, all asserting those things to be true, and 
 that it was necessary to call a convention and decide on the 
 constitutionality of the case. That it was not their inten- 
 tion to destroy the Constitution of the United States, but 
 to preserve it ; that the course they were going to pursue 
 was a peaceable on 3 — it would be settled by law. 
 
 No one would be asked to fight for the remedy — Mr. Mc- 
 Duffie would do all the fighting himself. But, as soon as 
 they got the consent of the people to call a convention, they 
 called for twenty thousand volunteers. They passed an act 
 that no duties should be paid in the port of Charleston — 
 not one cent for tribute, but millions for defence. Now, all 
 those assertions about the people paying forty dollars on the 
 hundred dollars worth of cotton sold, were all false, and 
 without the shadow of foundation, as I have shown. For 
 the Constitution of the United States had provided that no 
 tax or duty should be laid on any article exported from any 
 State, and that no imposition, duties or restrictions should 
 be laid by any State on the property of the United States^ 
 or either of them. 
 
 Now, it does seem to me, that those men had some other 
 
116 
 
 motives in view tlian to protect the people, or preserve^ tlie 
 Union, as I will endeavor to show. They also declared that 
 if Congress attempted to collect the duties in the port of 
 Charleston, they were no longer a member of tlfe Union. 
 "When, at the same time, the Constitution of the United 
 States provided that Congress should have power to lay on 
 duties and taxes on imports sufficient to defray the expenses 
 of government. Now, if there had been any wrong in the 
 acts of Congress, the United States Courts would have been 
 the legal place to go for protection ; and, these men, being 
 lawyers and members of Congress, could not be ignorant of 
 it. All proves, satisfactorily to my mind, that they h ad 
 some other object in view, than to protect the people. For 
 the Constitution provides that the judicial power of the 
 "United States shall extend to all cases of law and equity, 
 arising: out of the Constitution — to all cases where the United 
 States should be a party — two or more States another ; in 
 all cases in which a State shall be a party, they shall have 
 the original jurisdiction. 
 
 !Now, see what a false statement they made, when they 
 ^asserted tliat there could be no court found sufficiently im- 
 partial to decide against a State, and that no court had been 
 appointed. Those who asserted those things, being all law- 
 yers and members of Congress, could it have been possible, 
 that they did not know that there was such a court appoint- 
 ed, and that court was appointed expressly to protect the 
 people against unconstitutional legislation, either by the 
 States, or the United States, as their lawful arbiter? This 
 proves very' satisfactorily to me, that they had some other 
 object in view, than to protect the people; for they knew 
 that a State had not the physical power to enforce her law, 
 in opposition to the laws of the Constitution, which one 
 they had made was, that no article should enter free in one 
 port and pay duty in another ; so that neither Congress nor 
 a State had the right to make a law to enter any goods free 
 of duty in one port, and collect duties in another. 
 
117 
 
 Although they professed that their object was to preserve 
 the Union, every act they passed in their convention was in 
 direct violation of the Constitution ; and, if adopted, in 
 place of preserving the people's government, would utterly 
 destroy it, and place the people under the most despotic 
 government on earth, as I will, in future, show. Now, these 
 politicians, when they were asked, how they would enforce 
 their decision if the United States refused to submit to the 
 decision of the convention, which it was very reasonable 
 they would do, as they had tried the case by themselves, 
 and for themselves, the opposite party having no chance to 
 put up any defence, or have any hearing in the case, and as 
 it would be reasonable to suppose, they would be dissatisfied 
 with the decision — said that England would help them. 
 This language would argue very strongly that, they and 
 England had some understanding in the matter. 
 
 Now, all these acts were passed under the pretence of ta- 
 riff oppression on cotton, when we never paid one cent of 
 tariff duties ; for, as it answers as an article of exchange, 
 with which to pay debts, the same as gold and silver, it 
 goes free everywhere. But let us see what more they did 
 in the Convention of 1832, under the pretence or complaint 
 of high duties. Tliey created a different government for the 
 State of South Carolina from the one they lived in, under 
 the Constitution of the United States, changed the oath of 
 allegiance, and attempted to turn out of office every one 
 who had taken the oath to support the Constitution of the 
 United State3. And, provided that, no one hereafter should 
 hold any office of profit or trust, civil or military, (members 
 of Legislatures excepted,) unless they would take an oath to 
 support and defend the ordinance, and whatever act or acts 
 the Legislatures should pass in pursuance of the same. 
 
 Now, it will be seen, that the Legislatures were not to be 
 bound by any oath, but all officers were l)ound to support 
 and defend any act they passed, in pursuance of the same, 
 to the full extent and true meanine; thereof. 
 
118 
 
 We will now endeavour to see what are the true and most 
 important parts of that ordinance, at least the most import- 
 ant principles adopted and explained in the ordinance 
 and accompanying addresses, to the State of South 
 Carolina; also, the same princij^les advocated by John C. 
 Calhoun, in his disquisitions on governments. Tliey all 
 amount to the same thing, so far as principles are concerned. 
 The first principle set forth in the addresses accompanying 
 the ordinance is, that in all cases of a palpable and dan- 
 gerous infraction of the Federal compact, each State has the 
 right to annul and render inoperative, within its limits, all 
 such unauthorized acts. ISTow, it will be recollected, that 
 the judicial power was to extend and decide all such cases, 
 and that there is no such power belonging to a State. Tlie 
 addresses provide a difference in the opinions of those of 
 our fellow citizens who have hitherto dissented from us, and 
 demands from us that we should briefly state the principal 
 grounds upon which we place the right and expediency of 
 nullification. The address provides that the Constitution of 
 the United States is a compact between sovereign States — 
 the powers of which government were to operate to a cer- 
 tain extent upon the people of those sovereign States aggre- 
 gately, and not upon the State authorities. 
 
 First, it is a Confederacy, because in its foundations it 
 possesses not one single feature of nationality. The people 
 of the separate States as distinct, political communities, rati- 
 fied the Constitution — each State acting for itself, and bind- 
 ing its own citizens. The act of ratification declares it to 
 bind on the States so ratifying. The States are its authors, 
 their power created it — their voice clothed the government 
 it formed — it is, in reality, their government ^ and the 
 Union, of which it is a bond, is a Union of States, and not 
 of individuals. Secondly, it is a Confederacy, because the 
 extent of the powers of the government depends not upon 
 the people of the United States, collectively, but upon the 
 State Legislatures. The address further provides that it 
 
119 
 
 must never be forgotten that it is to the creatinpi;, and not to 
 the controlling power, that we are to look for the true char- 
 acter of the Federal Government. The true question is, 
 who are the parties to the compact? Who created, and 
 who can alter and destroy it? Is it the States or the peo- 
 ple ? The address asserts that the question has been an- 
 swered. The States, as States, ratitied the compact. The 
 people of tlie United States, collectively, had no agency in 
 its formation. It further asserts that thel-e did not exist 
 then, nor has there existed at any time since, such a politi- 
 cal body as the people of the United States, It asserts that 
 there is not now, nor has there ever been, such a relation 
 existing as that of a citizen of New Hampshire and a citi- 
 zen of South Carolina, bound together in the same social 
 compact. 
 
 The address also asserts that the government of the Unit- 
 ed States is strictly a league between several sovereigns. 
 Now, Mr. Calhoun's whole arguments, in his disquisitions 
 on governments, are entirely to fix and establish the sove- 
 reign power in the States, and make the States, or the Leg- 
 islatures of the States, the sovereigns over the people. 
 
 For, if the people are not a political body, and had no 
 agency in forming the government, they cannot claim any 
 protection under it, but must apply to, and depend on the 
 Legislatures for whatever they may think proper to let them 
 have, as I will further show, in the examination of this ad- 
 dress. For the convenient, joint exercise of the sovereignty 
 of the States, there must, of necessity, be some common 
 agency or functionary. This agency is the Federal Govern- 
 ment. The address asserts that the power of the Federal 
 Government is wholly derivative — that it possesses no inhe- 
 rent sovereignty — that it looks for its power to an exterior 
 source, and that source is the States ; that, as the States 
 conferred, so the States can take away its powers. All in- 
 herent sovereignty is, therefore, in the States. It is the 
 moral obligation, alone, which each State has chosen to im- 
 
120 
 
 poee on herself, and not the want of sovereignty, which re- 
 strains her from exercising all those powers. 
 
 We have said thus much on the subject of sovereignty, 
 because the only foundation upon which we can erect the 
 right of a State to protect its citizens is, that South Caroli- 
 na, by the Declaration of Independence, became, and has 
 since continued, a free, sovereign and independent State. 
 That, as a sovereign State, she has the inherent power to do 
 all those acts, which, by the law of nations, any prince or 
 potentate may, of right, do; that, like all other independent 
 States, she neither has, nor ought she to suffer, any other 
 restraint on her sovereign will or pleasure, than those high 
 moral obligations, under which all princes and States are 
 bound, before God and man, to perform — their solemn 
 pledges. 
 
 The inevitable conclusion from what has been said there- 
 fore, is, that all cases of compact between sovereigns, who 
 are independent, where, from the very nature of things, 
 there can be no common judge or umpire, each sovereign 
 has a right to judge, as well of the infractions as of the 
 mode and measure of redress. So, in the present contro- 
 versy between South Carolina and the Federal Government, 
 the right belongs solely to her, by her delegates in solemn 
 convention assembled, to decide, whether it be violated, and 
 what remedy the State should adopt. South Carolina, there- 
 fore, cannot, and will not yield to any department of the 
 Federal Government, and still less to the Supreme Court of 
 the United States. This provision, under the pretence of 
 protecting the people against an oppressive tariff, which I 
 have shown never did exist, and was all false, claims all 
 sovereign power to be fixed in the State Legislatures of each 
 State, that ever belonged to any king, prince or potentate. 
 This, they pretended to do, from the Constitution, yet they 
 acknowledge they do not get the power from the Constitu- 
 tion, which is the only truth set forth in their whole state- 
 ments. Each sovereign has the right to judge for himself, 
 
121 
 
 >•'' "Vhether any compact has been broken or violated between 
 himself and others. 
 
 Now, the courts of the United States are set apart as the 
 lawful arbiter to decide on all cases of law and equity, aris- 
 ing under the Constitution. But they assert they will not 
 submit to the General Government, which is the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, much less to the Supreme Court 
 of the United States. For it would enter into the essence 
 of their sovereignty. 
 
 But, let us see, if there is any authority for all this sove- 
 reignty, and see if it is not sovereignty created and claimed 
 without the shadow of truth or authority. The address, in 
 speaking of the division of the powers of the General Gov- 
 ernment, says, its authors could never have contemplated 
 that the Federal head should regulate the domestic industry 
 of a wide and extended country, distinguished above all 
 others for the diversity of its interests, pursuits and re- 
 sources, in its various sections. It was this acknowledged 
 diversity that caused the arrangement of the conjoint and 
 separate exercise of sovereign authority — the one to regu- 
 late the external concerns, the other to have the absolute 
 control over the lives, liberty and property of the people — 
 all these rights they claim under the act of nullification. If 
 we are asked, upon what grounds we place the right to re- 
 sist a particular law of Congress, and yet regard ourselves 
 as a consistent member of the Union, we answer, the ground 
 of the compact. We do not choose, in a case of this kind, 
 to recur to what is called a delegated right — we claim it as 
 a constitutional right — not meaning, as some have imagined, 
 that we derive the right from the Constitution. In this ac- 
 knowledgment, they admit that they do not get the right of 
 sovereignty from the Constitution, but claim it by the right 
 of inheritance. 
 
 Since these Southern protectors have claimed the right of 
 sovereignty over the lives, liberty and property of the peo- 
 ple, let us see some more of their claims, while attempting 
 
122 
 
 to bring us under their militarj power. After calling our 
 attention to the glorious achievements of our ancestors, as 
 though they were supporting the same government, when 
 every principle they adopted was destroying it, they say in 
 their address, " We conjure you in this mighty struggle, to 
 give your hearts, souls and minds to your injured and op- 
 pressed State, and to support her cause publicly and pri- 
 vately, with your opinions, your prayers, and your actions. 
 But, if appeals such as these prove unavailing, we command 
 your obedience to the laws and authority of the State, which 
 none can gainsay or resist. We demand it by that allegiance 
 Yv'hich is reciprocal with the protection you have received 
 from the State. We admit of no obedience to any other 
 authority which shall conflict with that primary allegiance 
 that every citizen owes to the State of his birth or adop- 
 tion." 
 
 There is not, nor has there ever been, any direct or immediate 
 allegiance between the citizens of South Carolina and the 
 Federal Government — the relation between them is through the 
 State. South Carolina having entered into the constitutional 
 compact as a separate, independent, political community, as has 
 been already stated, has the right to declare an unconstitutional 
 act null and void. After her sovereign delaration that the act 
 shall not be enforced within her limits ; such a declaration is 
 obligatory, as far as her citizens are concerned. The clear right 
 of the State is to declare the extent of the obligation — this 
 once made, the citizens have no course but to obey. If he 
 refuses obedience, so as to bring himself under the displeasure 
 of his only and lawful sovereign, and within the severe pains 
 and penalties which, by her high, sovereign power, the Legisla- 
 tures will not fail to provide in her self defence, the fault and 
 f oily will be his own. The address, speaking of the power of 
 the Legislature's projects of usurpation, cannot be masked 
 under pretences so likely to escape the penetration of select 
 bodies of men as of the people at large. "The Legislatures 
 will have better means of information. They can discover the 
 danger at a distance, and possessing all the organs of civil 
 
123 
 
 power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt 
 a regular plan of resistance." Now, it appears from the 
 language of this address that they wished to impress on the 
 minds of the people that this plan of protection had not been 
 provided by the provisions of the Constitution. 
 
 The address also provides that the citizens owe their alle- 
 giance and obedience to the State, because of the protection 
 they receive through the State, and that the State will not 
 admit of any allegiance to any other authority than the State > 
 and those to whom the State transfers them, so they do not 
 only claim the allegiance to themselves, but the right to transfer 
 them to whomever they please. And as they claim the absolute 
 control over the lives, liberty and property of the people, they 
 can make slaves of them or sell them to others for slaves. 
 This is certamly the most despotic plan of government on the 
 face of the globe — adopted by Calhoun and his party, and by 
 Lincoln and his party. The Ordinance of the Convention of 
 South Carolina, in 1832, adopts principles to secure this power 
 in the Legislatures of each State, over the people, as I will 
 next show. 
 
 But in order to enable the reader to understand more clearly 
 the error I wish to expose, embodied in this ordinance, I wish 
 to show clearly that the word sovereignty does not belong to nor 
 can be properly applied to the Legislatures of Congress, nor to 
 the Legislatures of States, nor acts passed by majorities of 
 either of them. For the acts of majorities, and the legislation 
 of Congress and of States, are prohibited, by the Constitution 
 of the United States, from having . any power but what is 
 expressly named, as I have shown, in the description of the 
 formation of our government by the prohibitions there set 
 forth, and that both those Legislatures are only the agents of 
 the people, and not sovereign. All their powers are limited and 
 restricted to making laws to protect all the members of the 
 Union in their rights against wrong. The people have already 
 declared what rights they shall be entitled to, and have not left 
 it to the Legislatures nor to Conventions to say what their 
 rights shall be or shall not be. 
 
 This States Rights party makes out that in the formation of 
 
124 
 
 their government they appointed judges and juries to decide 
 where disputes arise between themselves or their agents, swear- 
 ing every one in office, from the constable to the President, to 
 support and defend the principles they had already adopted. 
 Not any acts of conventions or separate States should decide, 
 for if that was the case, there could be no Union nor standard , 
 nor solid foundation for a government to stand on. It would 
 be like the house built upon the sand, which fell down during 
 the first rain. j^It would be like a man buying a wagon to go 
 a wagoning, but would not fix any breast chains or lock chains. 
 He did very well on level ground when he kept the horses all 
 pulling together, but when he had to go down hill the wagon 
 would run over the wagoner and all the horses. If he should 
 put the people before the wagon it would run over them, and 
 if he put them behind the wagon it would run off and leave 
 them. This is the kind of government the States Rights party 
 are attempting to make for the people. The people would have 
 no checks against the will of the Legislatures, nor against acts 
 passed by them, no checks against acts passed by conventions, 
 because they said the people had no government nor agency in 
 forming the government, and that they had no course but to 
 obey their sovereign, and if they refused obedience, so as to 
 bring themselves under the displeasure of their only and lawful 
 sovereign, that the Legislature, in her high and sovereign 
 capacity, would not fail to provide for her self-defence, the fault 
 and folly would be their own. 
 
 This is the kind of government they offer the people under 
 the States Rights doctrine, introduced by the Convention of 
 South Carolina, in 1832. Then the Ordinance went on to 
 secure this power over the people, and the Abolitionists of the 
 North, and Lincoln, have, as I will show hereafter, adopted this 
 game platform. This makes me think they are both acting in 
 concert together, and that their object, from the beginning, has 
 been to destroy the people's government, so that they can bring 
 the people imder a monarchical government, and place them- 
 selves in a situation where they can rol) and plunder the people 
 to any extent they please, and fix on themselves princely for- 
 tunes, so that they could live in princely royalty and grandeur. 
 As I will endeavour to show you, their plan is well adaj^ted to 
 
125 
 
 accomplish it, if they are not checked, and that immediately, 
 for here is their standard of principles laid down. That every 
 State is a separate sovereign State, under no obligation only 
 their own will. There could be no Union under that principle 
 if adopted it would destroy the Union, it would destroy every 
 provision of the Constitution, and place the people under their 
 State Rights doctrine, and would divide the government of the 
 United States into as many different governments as there are 
 States, and leave the people's government without any combi" 
 nation or National power to protect themselves against any 
 formidable enemy, and also against legislative power, claimed 
 by the Legislatures by their acts of majorities, and if they 
 could get the military power would soon fix the people in a 
 situation that they cannot have any course but to obey. 
 
 The Ordinance provides that the Constitution of the United 
 States, as a compact between sovereign States, was a govern- 
 ment to operate, to a certain extent, upon the people of those 
 sovereign States aggregately, and not upon State authorities- 
 Those are the acts of the Ordinance, for the purpose of forcing 
 both the people of South Carolina and all others acting under 
 the authority of the United States from establishing their 
 powers assumed by this State over the people of South Carolina. 
 In this convention they had the right to decide for themselves 
 choose their own mode and measure of redress, and that no 
 lawful arbiter could be found sufficiently impartial to decide 
 against them, therefore there was none provided. For this 
 Ordinance first declares that Congress has parsed tariff acts 
 which are unauthorized by the Constitution, and that they are 
 null and void, not binding on this State, its officers or citizens, 
 and all pr omises, contracts and obligations made or entered 
 into, or to be made or entered into, with purpose to secure the 
 duties imposed by said acts, and all judicial proceedings which 
 shall be hereafter in pursuance thereof, are and shall be held 
 null and void. 
 
 The Ordinance here undertakes to n;le and govern the acts 
 of Congress without law, and contrary to the law of the Con- 
 stitution, which provides that the Supreme Court of the United 
 States should extend to all cases of law and equity arising 
 under the Constitution of the United States, and in all cases 
 
126 
 
 where a State was a party, was to have the original jurisdiction. 
 But in place of going to that court for protection, this conven- 
 tion ti'ies the case for themselves and by themselves, beimg but 
 one party. Was there ever before any such a case claimed to 
 be law, where one party were to sit for themselves and decide 
 for themselves, without giving the other party a chance to put 
 up a defence, or have a hearing in the case. If that system of 
 government were adopted, each party would get a decision 
 very easy for themselves, but who would they get to enforce 
 it ? If it could not be enforced, it could be of no use. 
 
 The next part of the Ordinance .was to prevent all the con- 
 stituted authorities, of both the State and the United States, 
 from enforcing any law that had or shall be made against their 
 decision. It provides that it shall not be lawful for any of the 
 constituted authorities of this State, or of the United States, to 
 enforce the payment of duties imposed by said acts. Now, if 
 they could not be collected by any of the constituted authori- 
 ties, it left no other way but by force of arms. The Constitu- 
 tion provides that no article shall enter free in one port and 
 pay duty in another, that the duties shall be uniform throughout 
 the United States, yet they pretend they were acting according 
 to the authority of the Constitution. Now, if that principle 
 were adopted as a standard of government, the United States 
 could not have any security in raising one dollar to defray the 
 expenses of Government, because any State could prevent 
 Congress from collecting one cent at any time they saw proper, 
 and defeat all .the designs of the Constitution, where it provides 
 that Congress shall have power to lay on duties and excises to 
 pay the expenses of government. According to their principles, 
 a State could prevent Congress from discharging the duties 
 assigned to them at any time they j^leased. That would be not 
 only impairing the obligation of contract, but would prevent 
 Congress from paying off the officers serving the people under 
 the Constitution of the United States, and of course would 
 destroy it, and would deprive the people from any protection 
 against the action of legislation or any other power they claim 
 over the people. 
 
 "It shall be the duty of the legislature to adopt such measures 
 and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to this 
 
127 
 
 ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement, and arrest the ope- 
 ration of said acts and part of acts of the Congress of the 
 United States, within the limits of this State, from and after the 
 jBrst day of February next ; and it shall be the duty of all other 
 constituted authorities, and of all persons residing within the 
 limits of this State, and they are required and enjoined to obey 
 and give eflfect to this ordinance, and such act or acts and 
 measures of the legislature as may be passed or adopted m 
 obedience thereto." 
 
 Now, it will be seen that this States Rights doctrine claims 
 the supreme power over all the acts of Congress, over the con- 
 stituted government of the people, and over the people them- 
 selves, and commands their obedience and allegiance to them, 
 not only what'acts they Aai?e passed, but whatever acts they way 
 pass. Now, the Constitution provides that the citizen shall be 
 secure in his person, papers, houses and effects, and that security 
 is to be inviolably preserved, and that no State shall have power 
 to impair their obligation. 
 
 Now, if there had been any unlawful legislation on the 
 part of Congress, the Court of the United States was the 
 place to have tried the case, for that was the place the Con- 
 stitution had fixed, outside of all legislation or acts of ma- 
 jorities, and all agents of the people, so that those who made 
 laws should not decide for themselves. 
 
 Tliose courts were provided for the express purpose of 
 protecting the people against unjust legislation and acts of 
 majorities, both by Congress and Legislatures of States. The 
 President's veto was another check — but three-fourths of 
 the votes of Congress could overrule the veto — yet the 
 courts could still overrule Congress, President and all, for, 
 it is their business to know the Constitution, and protect 
 them in all the rights secured to them in their States, and 
 all over the United States. 
 
 Now, the ordinance says that, "in no case of law or 
 equity, decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be 
 drawn in question the authority of this ordinance, or the 
 validity of such act or acts of the Legislatures as may be 
 
128 
 
 passed for the purpose of giving eflect thereto, or the valid- 
 ity of the aforesaid acts of Congress imposing duties, shall 
 any appeal be taken or allowed, to the Supreme Court of 
 the United States. Nor shall any copy of the record be 
 permitted or allowed for that purpose. And, if any such 
 appeal shall be attempted to be taken, the courts of this 
 State shall proceed to execute and enforce their judgments, 
 according to the law and usage of the State, without refer- 
 ence to such an attempted appeal ; and the persons attempt- 
 ing to take such an appeal, may be dealt with as for con- 
 tempt of court." 
 
 Kow, all those acts passed in the ordinance are strictly in 
 opposition to the provisions of the Constitution, and, if es- 
 tablished as the standard of government, would destroy all 
 the provisions of the Constitution, adopted by the people, 
 and leave the people no course but to obey. Because, if 
 you destroy the authority of the courts, you destroy the 
 whole government ; for it is the way in all governments in 
 which the people are put in possession of their rights, when 
 they are denied them by others. But if we, the people, go 
 to dispute this sovereign Legislature's right of having the 
 absolute control over our lives, liberty aud property, and 
 wish to carry our case before the United States for protec- 
 tion, this ordinance provides that "the citizen shall not take 
 an appeal, nor copy of an appeal, and if he attempts so to 
 do, this sovereign Legislature will not, in their high and 
 sovereign power, fail to provide for herself, and treat him 
 with pains and penalties, as for contempt of the courts, 
 which they have established over all the constituted author- 
 ities of the United States." In order, more fully, to secure 
 to them this power, claimed for the Legislature over the 
 people, they provided further in their ordinance that, " all 
 persons now holding any office of honor, profit or trust, 
 civil or military, under the State, (members of the Legisla- 
 ture excepted,) shall, within such time and in such manner 
 as the Legislature shall prescribe, take an oath, well and 
 
129 
 
 truly to obey, execute and enforce this ordinance, and such 
 act or acts of the Legislature as may be passed in pursuance 
 thereof." 
 
 JSTow, it will be seen, that the legislators of this State are 
 sovereigns, and have no oath to take, but act according to 
 their own will. But all the officers of the State, both civil 
 and military, are to be sworn to enforce and execute this or- 
 dinance, and whatever acts the Legislature may pass in pur- 
 suance of the same. It provides further, that on the neglect 
 or omission of any such person or persons so to do, his or 
 their office or offices shall be forthwith vacated, and shall 
 be filled up as if such person or persons were dead, or 
 had resigned. And hereafter, no person elected to any 
 office of profit, civil or military, (members of the Legisla- 
 ture excepted,) shall, until the Legislature shall otherwise 
 provide and direct, enter on the execution of his office, or be 
 in any respect competent to discharge the duties thereof, 
 until he shall, in like manner, have taken a similar oath ; 
 and no juror shall be empanneled in any of the courts of 
 this State in any cause, which shall be in question of the or- 
 dinance, or any acts of the Legislature passed in pursuance 
 thereof, unless he shall first, in addition to the usual oath, 
 have taken an oath that he will, well and truly, obey, exe- 
 cute and enforce this ordinance to the full extent and true 
 meaning of the same. 
 
 Now, it will be seen that, " in no case wherein is di-awn in 
 question the authority of the ordinance, or any acts passed by 
 the Legislature in pursuance thereof, that no judge or jury 
 should be permitted to sit on the trial unless they were first 
 sworn to decide against the person that disputed their authori- 
 ty, and in favor of their authority — which was, that the Legis- 
 lature had, or should have, the absolute control over the lives, 
 liberty and property of the people — which was everything that 
 could be thought of or named." 
 
 Now, let us see how this principle differs from the agreement 
 9 
 
130 
 
 entered into,' by the people under the Union, in the Articles of 
 Confederation. 
 
 There the people entered into a firm league of friendship 
 with each other to support and defend each other against all 
 attacks made against them, or any of them, on account of reli- 
 gion, sovereignty or any other pretence whatever — which cov- 
 ers everything that could be thought of or named. Now, those 
 provisions are a part of the Constitution, where the people 
 agreed to protect each other in everything that could be thought 
 of or named. 
 
 The ordinance goes on to provide, " that the Legislature of 
 the State shall have power to take everything from the people 
 that can be thought of or named — both life, liberty and prop- 
 erty, and leave the people no course biat to obey." 
 
 All this power they assume under separate State Rights sove- 
 reignty. Now, all this time, when Mr. Calhoun and his party, 
 like Mr. Lincoln and his party pretended that their object 
 was to preserve the Union, and not destroy it, every plan they 
 adopted was strictly in opposition to the provisions of the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Lincoln pretends he is trying to preserve the Union, when 
 every act he does is destroying it, for he and his party have vi- 
 olated every provision of the Constitution. The citizen of each 
 State was to have free ingress and egress, to and from, any 
 other State, and take his property with him. No imposition 
 duties or restrictions should be laid by any State upon the pro- 
 perty of the United States, or any of them. No law or regu- 
 lation shall be made by any State, to discharge from service, a 
 servant, or person bound to service, due a citizen of another 
 State; but, if a servant, or person bound to service, shall escape 
 to another State, they shall be bound to deliver up such ser- 
 vant, or person bound to service, due a citizen of another State. 
 
 Now, every one of those provisions Lincoln and his party 
 have violated, and acted in opposition to the provisions of the 
 Constitution. The Constitution provides that citizens shall be 
 secure in their persons, papers and effects, and that security was 
 to be preserved inviolable ; and that no State should have power 
 
131 
 
 to pass an ex post facto law, nor law imparing the obligation of 
 contracts. 
 
 What has Lincoln and his Abolition party been doing for 
 many years ? In place of protecting the citizens and making 
 them secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects, they 
 have, by acts of Legislatures, and acts of majorities, robbed the 
 people of their African property, and prohibited them from the 
 privileges held by other States, which right is secured to them 
 by the Constitution. This is what I call passing ex post facto 
 laws, and laws imparing the obligation of contracts, and adopt- 
 ing the same plan of government that Davis and his secession- 
 ists have, to take away the rights of the people by acts of legis- 
 lation and acts of majorities. 
 
 Again, Lincoln and his Abolition party have declared that 
 the Southern members of the, Union who own African property', 
 shall not take their African property into any of their States, 
 or move with it into any of the Territories of the United States, 
 of which property they are the joint OAvners, and furnished 
 their joint share of money and blood to obtain. They now say 
 they will take from us all this right secured to us by the Con- 
 stitution ; and, if we do not remain in the Union with them,. 
 Lincoln and his Abolitionists will kill and rob us of everything 
 we possess. 
 
 Now, this is the principle upon which Lincoln and his party 
 are acting, merely because he thinks he has the brute force to 
 do it. This will show that Davis and Lincoln assume and con- 
 tend for the same political power, for, by acts of legislation and 
 acts of majorities, they pass over the Constitution the same as 
 though it did not exist — each claiming the same power at the 
 heads of departments. The Davis secession party, at the com- 
 mencement of their State Rights doctrine, pretended that they 
 were trying to preserve the Union ; but, since then, have de- 
 clared themselves out of the Union. It is Liberty, Freedom 
 and Independence they pretend to be contending for, so it is 
 for themselves to have the absolute control over both the lives, 
 liberty and property of the people. And Lincoln pretends that 
 he is preserving the Union, while, at the same time, he is de- 
 stroying every provision of the Constitution. It would seem 
 
132 
 
 from what I have shovm, that these political chieftains have 
 been acting imder a great mass of ignorance, if their object was 
 what they professed to the people ; but this seems impossible. 
 For these two military chieftains are men of great intellect — so 
 are their colleagues, who are to be co-partners with them in the 
 division of power, that I imagine it is to be divided among the 
 leading characters in that way. I can discover great sense in 
 their plan of carrying out the destruction of the people's gov- 
 ernment, and also in fixing a plan to secure to themselves the 
 government over the people. 
 
 Now, as I have shown, under the government of the people, 
 in the Constitution of the United States, each citizen was enti- 
 tled to every privilege that any other citizen had ; there was no 
 distinction made. All the members of the Union were to be 
 protected on any account whatever, so far as justice was con- 
 cerned. The Constitution left no foundation for parties. This 
 Union was to be perpetual, and never could be destroyed, ua- 
 less parties were created ; and this could not be done without 
 putting false constructions on the provisions of the Constitu- 
 tion, or some political leader misleading the people, and they, 
 through ignorance, following the advice of their deceivers. 
 
 As I have said, this government never could have been de- 
 stroyed without parties, and the liberties of the people never 
 could be taken from them, unless by getting them under mili- 
 tary power. Now, you cannot get people under military power 
 imless parties are brought into conflict with each other. Davis 
 and his party, and Lincoln and his party have managed their 
 part to bring about this conflict, when there was no necessity, 
 to settle those disputes in any other way than by law, as I have 
 shown. Those political chieftains were all lawyers, and men of 
 such intellect, that they could not be so ignorant as not to know 
 that. But, if their object was to destroy the government of 
 the people, that would not answer their purpose — but let their 
 -object be what it may, both their principles are in direct oppo- 
 sition to the Constitution, and would destroy every provision 
 in it I will now attempt to show that the plan of government 
 adopted by Mr. Calhoun, and also by the Abolition party, could 
 not make any other kind of government than a king's and era- 
 
133 
 
 peror's. He contended that every State was separate, sove- 
 reign and ind ependent — had the right to decide for themselvesj 
 choose their own mode and manner of redress, and under no 
 obligation but their own will, like any king or prince; that they 
 had the absolute control over the lives, liberty and property of 
 the people — the clear right to declare the extent of the obliga- 
 tion, and, when once declared, the citizens had no course but to 
 obey. But if they refused obedience, so as to bring themselves 
 under the displeasure of their only and lawful sovereign, and 
 within the severe pains and penalties, the Legislature, in her 
 high and sovereign capacity, will not fail to provide for her self- 
 defence, their fault and folly will be their own. 
 
 Now, this ordinance of 1832 leaves no doubt, where and who 
 they make the sov ereign over the people, and they claim more 
 power over the people than any king, prince or potentate in 
 any civilized country. The African chief alone, that I know of, 
 claims such powers, who eats whom he pleases, kills whom he 
 pleases, takes from whom he pleases, and gives to whom he 
 pleases. If they establish this power over the people, there is 
 nothing to hinder those military chieftains from doing the same. 
 Now, let us see what provisions they made to secure the power 
 over the people they have claimed. Now, all this power they 
 claimed, they derived from the ordinance, and it is explained in 
 the ordinance, and by the address accompanying it. They pro- 
 vide that in no case where Avas drawn in question the authority 
 of the ordinance, or any act or acts of the Legislature, in pur- 
 suance of the same, shall any judge or jury be permitted to sit 
 on the trial, unless they would take the oath, well and truly to 
 obey, execute and enforce the ordinance, and whatever act or 
 acts the Legislature should pass, to the full extent thereof. 
 
 Now, this oath of allegiance was changed from supporting 
 the Constitution of the United States to supporting any act the 
 Legislatures might pass, in pursuance of the ordinance that gave 
 the legislative bodies such power over the people. Next, they 
 provide that in no case where shall be drawn in question the au - 
 thority of the ordinance, or any act or acts of the Legislatures, 
 in pursuance of the same, shall an appeal, or copy of an appeal 
 be allowed to the Supreme Court of, the United States. But, 
 
134 
 
 if any appeal, or copy of an appeal, should be attempted to be 
 taken, the person attempting to take such an appeal, or copy of 
 an appeal, shall be dealt with as for contempt of court. They 
 also i^rovided that the Legislature should have power to fix a, 
 time, and require every officer in the State of South Carolina to 
 take a similar oath ; and, if any officer refused to take the oath 
 his office should be null and void, as though he were dead, or 
 had resigned. They then provided for filling up such offices, 
 and, if no one should offer to serve, the Legislature would ap- 
 point, and if those appointed would not serve, they were to be 
 fined and imprisoned, and deprived of holding office for life. 
 They also provided that there should be no appeal from a court- 
 martial. * 
 
 Now, the Constitution of the United States provides that the 
 military power shall be subordinate to the civU power ; but, you 
 see this State Right secession sovereignty establishes the milita- 
 ry above the civil , for when there is no appeal from any court, 
 that establishes that court above all others. Now, those State 
 Right sovereigns pretended, in all their proceedings, that their 
 object was to preserve the Union, while, at the same time, they 
 were willfully and wittingly destroying every vestige of it. 
 
 Now, if the Legislature has the absolute control over the 
 life, liberty and property of the people, and a right to make any 
 law they pleased, and under no obligation but their own will, 
 as the ordinance declares, they were not bound by any oath, 
 but left free to make any law, and the people were to have no 
 course but to obey. And, having a military court, from which 
 there could be no appeal, they could pass laws to inflict all pun- 
 ishments through these courts, and put any one to death under 
 military power. They also provided that the Legislature should 
 have power, from time to time, to provide suitable oaths for of- 
 ficers and citizens to take, and also to define what should con- 
 stitute treason against the State, and the penalty thereto an- 
 nexed. 
 
 The defence they put up was, if any one spoke against any 
 act the Legislature passed, or resisted it in any manner what- 
 ever, the penalty should be death, without the benefit of the 
 clergy, which means, witliout any chance of being reprieved. 
 
135 
 
 Kow, as there was no appeal from the decision of a court-mar- 
 tial, and they had secured to themselves the right to make any 
 law they pleased, they being under no obligation but their own 
 will. If the people spoke against any law they passed, or re- 
 sisted it in any manner whatever, the penalty was death, with- 
 out any chance to be reprieved. All judges and jurors that 
 should be permitted to sit on the trial, should first be bound by 
 oath, to well and truly obey, execute and enforce the ordinance, 
 and whatever act or acts passed by the Legislature, to the full 
 intent and meaning thereof 
 
 Now, the Legislature, having the power to pass any law they 
 pleased, can place the punishment of any crime they think fit in 
 the hands of the military court, and through that, inflict death 
 on any one they please. They further provide that, no indict- 
 ment under this act shall be subject to traverse. They further 
 provide, that on the trial of any suit or action, in which shall 
 be brought in question the ordinance aforesaid, or these acts, 
 the same may be given in evidence, without being specially 
 plead, so that, according to this act, this case might be taken 
 into the military court and tried, without your having a chance 
 to put off the trial, to obtain witnesses for your defence, if you 
 were ever so innocent of the offence brought against you, and 
 put you to death without allowing you a chance to plead your 
 cause. I now ask, does so great a despotism exist oyer any 
 people on the face of the globe, or even among the heathens ? 
 If there is, I do not know where it is. All this they did, pre- 
 tending they were preserving the Constitution, or, rather the 
 reserved rights of the States, when they were destroying every 
 security of any right to either life, liberty or property, and 
 fixing a plan of securing to themselves the control over the 
 lives, liberty and property of the people. 
 
 Now, those politicians not only made these claims over the 
 people, but knew how to secure the power. And when you 
 take this view of the matter, you will see they have acted with 
 great wisdom to deceive the people; for under the pretence of 
 protecting the people in their rights, they have organized a 
 system of government that has secured and taken to themselves 
 the absolute control over the lives, liberties and property of the 
 
136 
 
 people, as I have shown, all under the pretence, first, of pro- 
 tecting you against an oppressive tai-iff on cotton, when, as I 
 have shown, they never paid a cent of duties at home or 
 abroad. 
 
 The next was under the pretence of protecting the people 
 against Abolitionists. Under these two pleas they urged the 
 people to let them call a convention, to devise means and ways 
 to prevent these dreadful calamities that were about to fall on 
 us. And in place of telling the people that the Constitution of 
 the United States was the Union, and had provided laws to 
 protect every member of the Union, North and South, and had 
 prohibited all acts of legislation and acts of majorities from 
 having any power to emancipate even the value of a pin from 
 them, and the Courts of the United States woiild protect them, 
 they came back and told us that it should not be denied but 
 that a State had a right to emancipate, and that there should be 
 non-intervention on the part of Congress. This is what they 
 told us, and being all lawyers they ought to have known better. 
 This they did in Cincinnati — but in the next convention they 
 declared that they had the right to take everything from the 
 people, and were imder no obligation but their own will, and 
 the right to decide for themselves, choose their own mode and 
 measure of redress. Now, if every State is under no other 
 obligation than its own will,' there could be no union nor 
 agreement between different States. For each State having a 
 right to decide for herself, and choose her own mode and 
 measure of redress, there could be no lawful arbiter found 
 sufficiently impartial to decide against her, therefore she was 
 unprovided for. 
 
 Now, this principle, if adopted, would establish as many dis- 
 tinct governments in the United States as there are States, all 
 under no obligation but their own will, without any lawful agent 
 to settle any disputes between them, each one to decide for 
 herself, choose her own mode and measure of redress. If this 
 principle was established as a standard of government, it would 
 place us under the same system of government under which the 
 heathen chieftains live, and would prevent us from having any 
 combination of physical power, by which to defend ourselves 
 
137 
 
 against any formidable enemy, and we would become an easy 
 prey to them. Now, how any man could set forth such a bare- 
 faced and false construction, without one shadow of foundation ^ 
 is astonishing to me. And how so many men could believe 
 them is still more astonishing. It seems to me that they must 
 have been acting through the counsel of kings and potentates, 
 and employed to overthrow this great and happy government. 
 They also asserted that the Government of the United States 
 possessed not one feature of nationality, and that it was a union 
 of States and not of individuals. Now, if that were true, we 
 could not have any nationality, for no officer ia any State is 
 bound by oath or affirmation to support and defend the Con- 
 stitution of any State but his own. But, on the contrary, every 
 officer in every State is bound by oath or affirmation that he 
 will defend and support the Constitution of the United States, 
 notwithstanding any constitution or law in any State to the 
 contrary. Now, it will be seen that there is no union between 
 State authorities, for the oath of every officer in every State is 
 that he shall disregard any constitution or law in any State, if 
 it conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. This 
 shows clearly that no sovereignty was fixed in the Legislatures 
 of States. But if we would establish it as a union of State 
 authorities, we would not have one feature of nationality, 
 because the Constitution of the United States provides that no 
 State shall enter into any treaty or compact with another State 
 or foreign power. 
 
 Now, if we were to adopt Mr. Calhoun's principles, we could 
 not enter into any treaty or compact with foreign powers, there- 
 fore we could not enter into any treaty of commerce with our 
 own States, nor any other power. I do not see how Mr. Cal- 
 houn and his followers can assert that it was a union of States, 
 and that State authorities were sovereign, under all the prohi- 
 bitions and restrictions on the part of a State, for the word 
 sovereign will not apply to any other than those who are under 
 no other obligation than their own will. Now, the people of 
 the United States, under the Constitution of the United States, 
 have adopted it as their expressed will, as well as the principles 
 embodied in it, and all agree with each other, and no one else , 
 
138 
 
 that they Avill be governed by them, and that they will govern 
 all others by them, thus forming the great physical and national 
 body for protection at home and abroad, as I have already 
 shown. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun also asserted that, under the Constitution of the 
 United States, there were two governments — one Federal, the 
 other State. He said the powers not delegated to the Federal 
 G-overnment were reserved to the States ; that as far as the 
 power delegated to the Federal Government was concerned, 
 they were sovereign, and as far as the reserved rights of the 
 States are concerned, they are sovereign, and each had the right 
 to decide for themselves as to the extent of their power. The 
 State government had the right to decide for herself, choose 
 her own mode and measure of redress, and that the Federal 
 Government would try to absorb all the reserved rights of the 
 States, and by construction, encroach on the reserved rights of 
 the States, as each government had the right to decide for 
 itself, no lawful arbiter being competent to settle the dispute. 
 The State would remonstrate, raise one party against another, 
 and bring up a war of parties. At last they come into conflict 
 with each other, the military chieftain at last takes the govern- 
 ment into his hands, and the people, during these times, will be 
 brought into so much distress that they will be willing to 
 crouch imder any government to get out of it, and it be 
 obliged to be a monarchical government of some kind. 
 
 Now, all those principles, of which Mr. Calhoun speaks, are 
 introduced by himself, and in direct opposition to the provi- 
 sions of the Constitution, for there is no such a thing as a 
 sovereign Federal Government nor a sovereign State Govern- 
 ment, nor is there any power in legislation, or acts of parties or 
 majorities, but what is given by the Constitution. The Consti- 
 tution i« a wall that none can legally pass over, and there is no 
 party, either State or United States, that has a right to decide 
 for itself. But the people have appointed a judicial power, 
 apart from all law making power, who had the right to decide 
 on all cases of law and equity arising under the Constitution. 
 This is the court Mr. Calhoun wanted to do away with, and is 
 the court our State Right sovereigns have done away with, for 
 
139 
 
 it entered riglit into the essence of theii' sovereignty, so that 
 they could not have the absolute control over the lives, liberty 
 and property of the people. j 
 
 Now, all those principles, introduced by Mr. Calhoun, would 
 answer two purposes if adopted, one would destroy, effectually; 
 all the provisions of the Constitution, and the other would be a 
 plan by which his followers could create parties and bring them 
 into conflict, so that they could bring the people under military 
 power. For, as I have said before, the government, under the 
 Constitution, cannot be destroyed, unless you create parties, 
 and the liberties of the people cannot be taken from them 
 unless you get them under military power. 
 
 You will ask me, perhaps, why those politicians took so much 
 pains to fix so nmch power in the Legislatures over the lives, 
 liberty and property of the people? Will they leave that 
 power in their hands ? I tell you no! Their object is to fix a 
 king in every State, with all the power conferred on each king, 
 and then make two emperors perhaps — Lincoln emperor at the 
 North, and Davis emperor at the South. 
 
 I draw my opinions from the provisions of the Ordinance, 
 and Mr. Calhoun's language in his book. The Ordinance pro- 
 vides that we will not admit of any allegiance to any other 
 authority than the State and those to whom the State transfers 
 that allegiance. You may see from this provision of the 
 Ordinance that they provide for the Legislatures, power to 
 transfer their allegiance to some one else. And as Mr. Calhoun, 
 in his work, recommends to have two Presidents, one at the 
 North and the other at the South, so that the Southern Presi- 
 dent could veto the acts of the North, and the Northern Presi- 
 dent could veto the acts of the South, and in that way each 
 President could protect the interests of his own constituents. 
 But Mr. Calhonn was not such a fool as to suppose that the 
 veto of the President against the acts of the Legislature, or 
 against the other President, could give security as a protection 
 against wrong. But he could not get along any way but by 
 parties. He asserted that the Government of the United 
 States did not possess one feature of nationality. 
 
 Now, no government can get along without nationality. No 
 
140 
 
 government could enter into a commercial treaty or compact 
 with any other power, for there is no such a thing as a govern- 
 ment having commercial intercourse with another government 
 unless they enter into a treaty with each other, and agree to 
 the terms upon which they will carry on this intercourse with 
 each other. I think the United States did enter into treaties 
 with nearly all nations of the world, and not a word was said 
 about States Rights sovereignty in the treaties. So I think 
 Mr. Calhoun has been mistaken about the United States not 
 having a single feature of nationality about it; but let us see if 
 his whole object was not to destroy the people's government, 
 and bring them under the worst monarchical despotisms on 
 earth. 
 
 Now, as Mr. Calhoim recommends two Presidents, I will 
 reasonably come to the conclusion that there might be two 
 emperors. He and his followers assert that the interests of the 
 two sections are directly opposed to each other, that whatever 
 is to the interest of the South is an injury to the North, and 
 whatever benefits the North is an injury to the South, which I 
 have already shown to be false. 
 
 But such arguments answer to create parties, if his principles 
 and arguments were true that there ought to be two Presi- 
 dents, we would need two emperors. But, after all, the 
 arrangements under his party protections and combinations of 
 different interests, he came to the conclusion that there would 
 be brought about a conflict between this great combination of 
 parties, every one trying to take care of his own interest with- 
 out any regard for the interest of others. In his whole argu- 
 ments he never reasons on what is right or wrong, what is just 
 or unjust, but arrays his whole arguments about what different 
 interests are and all antagonists are, and that those antagonists 
 will bring about a conflict that the successful general will take 
 the reins of government in his own hands, and that the result 
 ■will be that the people will be brought into such great distress 
 tliat they will be willing to crouch under any government to be 
 released from the distress they will be in, and the result will be 
 that a monarchical government will be established over the 
 United States. Mr. Calhoun might foretell what would take 
 
141 
 
 place when he had laid the whole plan to bring those events to 
 pass. The first thing to be done was to make the people believe 
 that all their interests were opposed to each other, when it was 
 only every one's interest to jjrotect each other against wrong. 
 But I will endeavour to show under what kind of principles they 
 are preparing to bring us. As Mr. Calhoun declares that the 
 United States does not possess one feature of nationality, there 
 are but three ways in which nationality can be established. 
 One is by kings, the other by emperors, and the third is by 
 such a government as the United States, where the people all 
 enter into a written agreement ■with each other, adopting those 
 principles agreed upon by all as the standard of government, 
 agreeing all to be governed by them, and to govern all others 
 by them, and by that way they form a combination of national 
 and physical power to protect and defend each other against all 
 attacks made against us or any of us, on account of religion 
 sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. 
 
 Now, in the face of these truths, Mr. Calhoun declared that 
 the United States had not a feature of nationality, but if Mr. 
 Calhoun's statement was true, that it was a government of 
 State Legislatures, and each State Legislature under no obliga- 
 tion but their own will, there could not have been any nation- 
 ality in the State governnaents, for the Constitution of the 
 United States provides that no State shall enter into any treaty 
 or compact with any other State, nor with a foreign power. 
 So that if Mr. Calhoun's statement were true, no treaty could 
 have been entered into, because, without nationality, none can 
 be entered into with any other government. It is necessary 
 that nationality should exist. 
 
 The reason why emperors exist, or are created, is because 
 there may be provinces which could not have a combination 
 sufficiently strong to defend themselves against a formidable 
 enemy, so that it might become necessary to enter into a 
 national agreement to defend each other, and transact their 
 nationality jointly. 
 
 After a treaty of commerce is entered into between two 
 governments, it is necessary to have a consul in every port 
 where we trade, to protect our citizens in their rights secured 
 
142 
 
 by the treaty, and this causes the national expenses to be very 
 heavy where the numbers of people are few. Now, if we 
 make the Legislatures of each State sovereign, and they will 
 not admit of any other allegiance than to the Legislatures, and 
 those to whom they may transfer their allegiance, it would be 
 reasonable, as they could not have any nationality under the 
 Constitution of the United States, that they would establish 
 their nationality through an emperor. So, you, see this founda- 
 tion of separate State legislation is wisely fixed to bring ua 
 under an emperor, and this sovereign Legislature has the clear 
 right to declare the extent of the obligation, and the people 
 were left no course but to obey, and if any one spoke against 
 any act of the Legislature, or resisted it in any manner what- 
 ever, the penalty was death, without any chance to be reprieved, 
 and if their authority was disputed, they could seize you and 
 try you without allowing you a chance to put off your case to 
 obtain witnesses to prove your innocence, or even hearing your 
 defence. So that if any villain was to have a spite at another, 
 he could report him to the courts of those State Rights Legis- 
 latures and swear falsely and have him put to death, if ever so 
 innocent of the charge. Now, if they will create such laws 
 before they fully secure themselves in the power over the 
 people, what will they not do if we suffer them to establish 
 themselves. Now here is the deplorable condition we are in^ 
 if we sustain Lincoln's abolition power, or the Davis power it 
 is the same, for both contend for State Rights, and the right to 
 take everything from the people, and they are both exercising 
 the same authority over their lives, liberties and property, both 
 are forcing the people from their homes and families. Many a 
 wife and large family of little children are left almost in a 
 starving condition, while her husband is forced to the army to 
 gratify these wicked traitors to humanity, liberty and their 
 country. 
 
 Now, I can see no use they could have for introducing sepa- 
 rate States Right power over the lives, liberty and property of 
 the people, nor can I see any use to which it can be applied, 
 unless it is to destroy the nationality of the people, acting un- 
 der the Constitution, and to establish an emperor in its place — 
 
143 
 
 each emperor or king having it in his power to make any law 
 he pleases, and the people have no course hut to obey, or be 
 put to death by a military court. Now, to take this view of 
 the subject, every principle adopted by Calhoun would answer 
 to bring us under an Eniperor, and destroy every right, liberty 
 or privilege secured by the Constitution. 
 
 And, instead of the people living uilder the best government 
 that has ever been created on the face of the globe, and the 
 most securely protected in every right, liberty or privilege, the 
 human famUy ought to enjoy, if they establish their govern- 
 ment over us, we will, of all people under the shining sun, be 
 the worst destroyed. 
 
 They have gone on with their plan, unresisted, and almost 
 unsuspected, until they have very nearly accomj)lished their 
 whole object. The Davis and Lincoln combinations have ac- 
 complished two of the most important points to carry out the 
 destruction of the Constitution, and all the rights and liberties 
 therein secured, for they have, in the first place, arrayed parties 
 against each other, the only way in which the Union could be 
 destroyed — all by falsehood and misconstruction by the Cal- 
 houn party and by Lincoln's Abolition party, passing unconsti- 
 tutional acts. By the manoeuvring of these two parties com- 
 bined, they have succeeded in creating parties, and, by these 
 parties, they have succeeded in bringing the people into conflict 
 with each other, who wished no harm to each other, and had no 
 desire to injure each other. But, by this military power, they 
 are compelled to kill each other like brutes, and destroy prop- 
 erty in every way they can, by building ships and establishing 
 navies, and issuing treasury notes sufficient to bankrupt the 
 United States. 
 
 Now, by adopting these parties, it enabled them to bring on 
 a conflict, and that gave each party an excuse for raising a mili- 
 tary force, so that they have succeeded ia getting the people 
 under military power, which they cannot resist, and from which 
 they cannot recover, but in one way, (that I can see,) without 
 making a sacrifice, which I do not wish to see them make. And 
 there is but one way, tha^j I can see, in which peace can be made 
 honorably. We need not expect peace to be made by the Lin- 
 
144 
 
 coin and Davis party combinations, if their object is really to 
 destroy the government of the people, and force them imder an 
 emperor, which, every principle adopted by both parties, would 
 indicate. All run into that channel, and neither of them coxild 
 carry on the war by themselves. It took both their positions 
 to create parties, and both their acts to bring on a conflict, and 
 bring the people under military power. Both these principles 
 are the same, claiming a right in the hands of the Legislatures 
 of the several States to emancipate. 
 
 The Lincoln party claim, and act upon, the right to eman. 
 cipate the slave property in their own States, while the 
 Davis party declares, that it cannot be denied but that a 
 State has a right to emancipate, and that there shall be no 
 intervention on the part of Congress ; and that the State 
 has the right to take life, liberty and property from the peo- 
 ple, and they have no course but to obey. They have 
 adopted all the provisions that I have shown, to secure the 
 power. So, it will be seen, that those two political bodies 
 contend for the very same principles ; for, if the Legislature 
 of a State have power, by legislation, to take away one part 
 of the people's property, they would have the power to take 
 all. So, the only difference between the two is, that Lin- 
 coln's Abolition party have taken away the African prop^ 
 erty from the Northern States, while the Davis party declare 
 that it shall not be denied that they had the right to eman- 
 cipate and take evei'y thing from the people. Now, what 
 are they fighting for? It cannot be because they differ in 
 opinion as to the right to emancipate, for the Davis party 
 goes farther in support of Abolitionism than I have ever 
 heard from the Lincoln party. Both these politicians pro- 
 fessed that their object was to preserve the Union, when 
 every principle they have adopted would utterly destroy it. 
 I have said a great deal about the principles adopted by our 
 Southern politicians. I have pointed out their errors with- 
 out reserve. If their errors originated in the head, and not 
 in any bad intentions from the heart, I am sure they will not 
 
145 
 
 blame me, but will be glad tli9,t their errors have been cor- 
 rected, so that much harm may be prevented hereafter. 
 
 I will now endeavour to show that the Abolition party, 
 both before and after the election of Lincoln, had violated 
 every obligation of the Constitution, both to the ISTorth and 
 South, and cannot be considered members of the Union. 
 
 And, in the first place, it will be recollected that I have 
 fully established, by the provisions of the Constitution, that 
 no State has power, by acts of Legislatures, or acts of ma- 
 jorities, to take even the value of a pin from the people. 
 Now, what has this Abolition party done at the ISTorth? 
 They have assumed the power, and emancipated from the 
 people of the Northern States their African property, when 
 the Constitution provides that the citizens of each State 
 were to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects, 
 and that security was to be preserved inviolable ; and all 
 members of the Union were bound to protect each other, on 
 any account whatever. But we were not bound to protect 
 any but the members of the Union. In place of protecting 
 the citizen in his just rights, according to the law of both 
 God and man, they assumed a false power, not granted by 
 the Constitution, which they had sworn to support and de- 
 fend. It provides that no State shall have power to pass an 
 ex post facto law, nor law imparing the obligation of con- 
 tracts. It also provides that no law or regulation shall be 
 made by any State to discharge a servant, or person bound 
 to service, due to a citizen of another State; but, if a ser- 
 vant, or person bound to service, in one State shall escape, 
 and flee to another State, they shall be bound to deliver such 
 servant, or person bound to service, to the proper owner. 
 
 The Constitution also provides that the citizens of each 
 State shall have free ingress and egress, to and from, 
 any otlier State, and be entitled to all the privileges and 
 immunities of the citizens in the several States, su,bject to 
 the same restrictions and taxation in the same State, pro- 
 vided those restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent 
 10 
 
146 
 
 the removal of property from one State to any other State, 
 the citizen being an inhabitant thereof, 
 
 Now, the State Rights Abolition Legislature, under Lin- 
 coln's administration, have passed laws to prevent both their 
 own citizens and those of any other State from enjoying the 
 rights secured to them. For the Constitution of the United 
 States provides that no imposition duties or restrictions shall 
 be laid by any State upon the property of the United States 
 or either of them. Now, all these obligations entered into, 
 and rights secured by the Constitution to the citizens, both 
 North and South, have been denied by the Abolition 
 State Rights legislative power. And, under this same power, 
 our Southern State Rights Calhoun party are trying to force 
 us ; so you see they are acting upon the same principles, and 
 both aiming at the same object, to wit: to establish emper- 
 ors over the people, and, by that means, place them in such 
 a condition that they can rob them to any extent they may 
 think proper, and fix on themselves any salary they pleased, 
 and live in princely royalty and grandeur, all at the expense 
 of the poor laboring citizens. But let us see how much 
 further these good State Rights Abolitionists have violated 
 the provisions of the Constitution, and show that those two 
 political bodies have both adopted the same plan to bring 
 the people into conflict, so as to get them under their mili- 
 tary power, and, by that means, take away their liberties. 
 They pretend that their whole object is to take the African 
 property from their owners and set them free, and, by that 
 means, blind the people and hide the true object from their 
 view. But let the people of the North look into this mat- 
 ter and see that the same rights which they take from the 
 North they take also from the South, for whatever right a 
 citizen of the North has, the citizen of the South has the 
 same. For the Constitution of the United States provides 
 that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 
 privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several 
 States, so that whatever right a citizen has in any State, 
 
147 
 
 every citizen througliout tlie United States has the same 
 right. If it were otherwise, it could not be a Union, for the 
 word union means one, not tioo ; it means one, united, con- 
 solidated and cemented ; so no right can be taken from the 
 Soutli, which sliould not be taken from the North. For, 
 under the Constitution, there are no parties. Every citizen 
 has the same right, and is entitled to the same protection, 
 by the supreme law of the land, which law is embodied 
 in the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 Now, this is the Union which I am in favor of restoring 
 to the people in its original purity, and no other. But you 
 will say, this is not the kind of a Union that Lincoln and 
 Davis are trying to establish. Both their objects is to de- 
 stroy it, as I have clearly shown, and bring the people un- 
 der the grandest despotism that existed on earth, and they 
 have already nearly accomplished their object. It will be> 
 seen that the object of the Lincoln Abolition party is to 
 create parties, and pretend that they are acting for the rights 
 of the North, while every act they do is taking away the- 
 rights of the people of the North. If they and the Davis^ 
 party can succeed in establishing the power in the State 
 Right Legislatures of each State, as they are trying to do, 
 the people would not have even the shadow of a right. 
 And, while the people of the North would be assisting them 
 in taking the negro from his master, in place of making the 
 negro free, he would bring the negro and himself both under 
 the most tyrannical despotism that exists on earth. 
 
 Now, I am no more a fiiend to a citizen of the South 
 than a citizen of the North. I am a friend of the wliole 
 ' human family, from one end of the globe to the other. We 
 are all a part of God's creation, and He has commanded us 
 to love one another, and I am certain that God has put it 
 into my heart to write these things for your warning ; and, 
 if God will be so gracious as to cause the people to read and 
 understand what 1 have written, and redeem themselves 
 from this cruel despotism that is about to bring them into 
 
148 
 
 everlasting ruin and destruction, give the glory to God and 
 not to man. I fear we have sinned in that respect, and God 
 is now about to convince us of our mistake. 
 
 We have been applauding the very men that have brought 
 all tliis evil on the land, by acclamations and praise. "We 
 have, also, made images, and set them up in our houses, 
 when the God, who gave us this happy government I have 
 endeavored to describe, has commanded " Thou shalt not 
 make unto thyself any graven image, or any likeness of 
 anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath — • 
 thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them." 
 
 Kow, many have brought the images and likenesses of 
 these into their houses, in honoring and aggrandising them, 
 and to show their respect, whicli is a kind of worship, in my 
 opinion. It is certainly sinning against the commands of 
 God. They are also building monuments in honor and 
 praise of man, when God is the only giver of every good 
 and perfect gift. So that, if we have a good man, God is 
 the giver ; and if he renders good and kind services, it is 
 God that gives him wisdom, and a willing mind to perform 
 his duty , so that tlie whole gift is of God. 
 
 I fnlly believe that God, by his holy spirit, showed me all 
 those things, which I have attempted to communicate to our 
 unfortunate people, and that He has given me a willing 
 mind to do so. I hope those principles that I have set forth 
 as a standard of government, may be once more adopted 
 over this once happy, but now the worst destroyed and most 
 unhappy people on earth. Therefore, if God should be so 
 kind as to re-instate yoii, in the happy condition that you 
 once were, be sure to give Him the honor and glory, and 
 not man. And try not to fix the honor too much on your- 
 selves, for God will reward you according to your deserts. 
 For God has shown me a plan by which, I think, the mili- 
 tary power can be taken from these two military chieftains, 
 and a way by which harmony, love, unity and friendship 
 may be restored among all tlie people of America, and with- 
 
149 
 
 out sacrificing any of the lives, liberties or property of tlie 
 people. The plan is, for the Legislatures of each State, 
 South and North, to call for an armistice for ninety days, 
 and, if we succeed, both North and South must agree to it 
 at the same time. It would not do so well for only one 
 party to act by themselves; for this would be acting upon 
 the same foundation. They have destroyed our rights by 
 creating parties ; but, under the Constitution, there were no 
 parties. All have the same right, from one part of the 
 Union to the other, to buy what he pleases, go into any 
 State or territory he pleases, and be protected in it — not 
 only in every State or territory, but as far as the flag of the 
 United States waves, on any account whatever. Let 
 the original Constitution, in its purity, be established, with 
 tliose explanations added, for the purpose of guiding and di- 
 recting the people and officers, in the true meaning of the 
 provisions of the government created by the people, and es- 
 tablished by the people, instead of acts of legislation and 
 acts of majorities. 
 
 If we succeed in restoring back to the people this true 
 standard of government principles, which, I hope, by the 
 help of God we will, our government will last forever, for 
 it is the government promised under the day of the Millen- 
 nium. Now, let all the members of the Legislatures do 
 their part in calling a Peace Convention, and every one that 
 refuses to adopt those principles as a standard of govern- 
 ment, you may be assured they are one of the party who 
 are in colleague with those who are aiming to destroy the 
 government of the people, and bring them under an emper- 
 or. And, as the whole work of destruction has been 
 brought about by lawyers, they are the ones who would be 
 benefitted by this government of tyranny and oppression ; 
 for, if they get a king in every State, it will require a great 
 many officers to carry out all their royal authorities. And 
 who would get these offices hnttlielawi/ers ? and they would 
 have to fix a high salary on them to preserve their loyalty. 
 
150 
 
 Now, it has been the laicyers North and South that have 
 brought all this evil on the land. They are the people who 
 ought to have told the people how to be protected in their 
 rights, and ought to have told them what their rights were. 
 But in place of telling them what rights were secured to them 
 by the government, they told the people that they had no rights 
 at all, that the Legislatures of the States had the absolute con- 
 trol over their lives and liberties, and had a right to take every- 
 thing from the peoj^le. a right to declare the extent of their 
 obligation, and when once declared, they had no course but to 
 obey. Now, this is the counsel we, the people, got from the 
 lawyers of South Carolina, after their Convention in 1832. So 
 I advise the members of the legislatures to watch the lawyers. 
 I will admit that there are many honest lawyers, and as good 
 men among them as the world can produce, and there are honest 
 men, both lawyers and citizens, who have taken an active part 
 with those two political parties, as the world can produce. I 
 do not point out any one in particular as a traitor, with all the 
 bad designs and intentions, that must have existed with the 
 originators of those principles, adopted by those destroyers of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 As we do not know at this time, and as all the originators 
 that we have any clue at are dead, and as we are well assured 
 in our minds that the largest bulk of mankind have been 
 actuated in all they have done, from the best designs and inten- 
 tions, I would say to the Legislatures, let them all agree that 
 all who come in willingly under the original Constitution in its 
 purity, that no disgrace nor charge shall be brought against 
 them, but that all shall come in free, and that so far as faults are 
 concerned or have been committed, no pains nor penalties shall 
 be inflicted of any kind, small or great. The principles written 
 out, and the explanations are so reasonable and just that any 
 one who does still resist and attempt to carry out those unjust 
 principles, giving power to the Legislatures to rob and take 
 everything from the people, after they have seen those explana- 
 tions and still attempt to go on and establish that despotism 
 over the peoj^le, should never be allowed to become a member 
 of this Union. As I have before shown, the Lincoln Abolition 
 
151 
 
 party hare forfeited every obligation under the Constitution, 
 have made parties to deceive the people of the North, and pre- 
 tended they were not doing them any harm, when they were 
 depriving them of every right secured. For by their acts they 
 are trying to bring the people under their legislative power, 
 just as the secessionists are trying to bring the people under. 
 They have passed laws to take your property from you without 
 any compensation, they are now giving Davis an excuse to 
 resist them, and are giving him a chance to bring two parties into 
 conflict, and by that means they have an excuse to bring the 
 people under military power, and by that means they are 
 destroying the government, and taking away all the security 
 for either life, liberty or property, as it is this day, and this 
 power they assume through acts of legislation and acts of 
 majorities in the Legislatures of each State. 
 
 Now, you see, as I have shown, that those two parties act on 
 the same principles. The North say they have the right to 
 emancipate — the South says "it shall not be denied that a State 
 has the right to emancipate and take everything from the 
 people." Now, on what grounds do those two great political 
 parties differ. I do assure the people of the North that if they 
 favor Lincoln's administration they will be brought under the 
 same despotism that Davis' administration is attempting to 
 bring upon the people of the South, as I have shown, and bring 
 all under emperors. 
 
 Now, the Constitution of the United States provides that no 
 law nor regulation shall be made by any State to discharge a 
 servant or person bound to service due to a citizen of another 
 State ; but if a servant or person bound to service shall escape 
 to another State, they shall be bound to deliver up such servant 
 or person bound to service. Now, by that same State Right 
 doctrine, claimed by the secessionists, the Lincoln party have 
 passed acts in ten States, that if a servant or person bound to 
 service shall escape to their State he shall be free, and by way 
 of deciding for themselves and choosing their own mode and 
 measure of redress, the Abolitionists have passed acts that if 
 any one attempted to recover a servant or person bound to 
 service, or aided and assisted in recovering such servant, the 
 
152 
 
 person so attempting to recover such servant should be fined to 
 a Reavy extent, and imprisoned for a long time. 
 
 Now, these acts were a direct violation of the Constitution; 
 and if adopted, as the standard of government, would destroy 
 the whole object of the framers of the Constitution, to wit: the 
 protection of each member of the Union in all his just rights- 
 So if these acts were suffered to exist, there would be no 
 Union. Now, this looks very much like those two parties 
 were acting in concert. Both and all their acts are unconstitu" 
 tional. Each party are trying to establish all power in the 
 hands of the Legislature. In this part they both agree, while 
 the very object of the framers of the Constitution was to 
 restrict all acts of legislation and acts of majorities from having 
 any i:)ower to take even the value of a pin from the jDeople. 
 The next thing that the Lincoln Abolitionists and the Davis 
 secessionists did was to pass a law in Congress that every 
 State should have the right to come into the Union, with or 
 without slaves ; this was also unconstitutional, and oaly calcu- 
 lated to create parties — this the secessionists also agreed to. 
 
 Now, the Constitution of the United States provides that 
 every officer throughout the United States shall be bound by 
 oath or affirmation that they will support and defend the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, notwithstanding any constitution 
 or law in any State to the contrary. Now, this shows clearly 
 that every State has to come into the Union on the same terms 
 as the first did. There is but one way to come in. If they 
 were to come in under different rights and privileges, it would 
 lay down a plan to create parties, and by that means lay the 
 foundation for the destruction of the Union. As both parties 
 agreed to it, it shows that they are acting in concert. Now, 
 the two parties have created a sufficient number of parties to 
 overthrow the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun had found out a plan to fill a whole book full of 
 parties, which he said were constitutional, while, I think I have 
 shown, they are every one false constructions, and that not one 
 of his or Lincoln's were constitutional, but directly opposed to 
 it, and could answer no other purpose than to place the people 
 in a situation that they could establish over them an emperor. 
 
153 
 
 Now, after these two parties have bo well agreed in forming 
 their party principles, let us see what plan they will adopt to 
 get the people into a conflict, so that they may be enabled to 
 get them under military power, and force them under any kind 
 of government they please, and place them in a situation that 
 they will have no course but to obey. The Lincoln Abolition 
 pajfty declares that the owners of slave property shall not carry 
 their property into any other State or territory, although they 
 fought for it and gave their full share of money to pay for it. 
 This was fully sufficient to cause the slave States to resist. The 
 secessionists told the people that there was no better way to 
 resist than to go out of the Union, and reasoned with the people 
 in this way — if three persons entered into a copartnership, and 
 two of them tried to swindle and cheat the third one out of his 
 rights, had he not a right to withdraw from the copartnership ? 
 The answer was at once yes. 
 
 But let us see whether this figure would suit the case or not. 
 In the first place those three individuals must be out of a 
 government or in one. If out of a government, he had the 
 right to withdraw, for he had no help against the two, but at 
 the same time he would have to leave his property in their 
 hands and lose it. But suj^pose they were living in a govern- 
 ment and the two tried to swindle the one, he had a right to 
 withdraw and call on the government to protect' him in his 
 rights. And when the law protected him in his rights, it made 
 him stronger than the 'two, while out of the government they 
 were stronger than he. 
 
 Now let us see how the case will apply to the secession of 
 South Carolina. The acts and declarations of the Lincoln Abo- 
 litionists were that they would deprive the members of one 
 portion of the Union of their just rights, secured to them under 
 the Constitution, Avhich provides that no State should have 
 power to impair the obligation of contracts. But the Aboli- 
 tionists, in face of these laws, passed acts to rob many of their 
 own people of their rights, and the Southern people of all their 
 rights. 
 
 Now let us see how our South Carolina friends acted under 
 these circumstances. They run out of the Union and left all 
 the shipping, arms, ammunition and territories in the undis- 
 
154 
 
 puted possession of the Abolitionists, and by their act relin- 
 quished all right and title to all those, according to the law of 
 nations. For, as they quit the government, they relinquished 
 all public property belonging to the government. They never 
 once claimed their right to it, but told them if they would let 
 them alone they might have it all. Now, this act of secession 
 left the people without shipping, navy, arms, ammunition and 
 territory. They told the people they must fight for their rights, 
 when they had given to the Abolitionists everything, and left 
 them nothing to fight with and nothing to fight /or but to estab- 
 lish the power in those legislative State Right bodies. So in 
 place of applying to the law to protect us in our rights, we left 
 everything in the hands of the Abolitionists. They gave up 
 everything, not even telling us what rights we had, but gave to 
 the Abolitionists everything they claimed, and in their conven- 
 tions created laws for the Abolitionists to act uj^on, as I have 
 already shown. 
 
 Now, under those circumstances, how can those two parties 
 make any showing to acquit themselves of the charge of acting 
 in concert, for the very purpose I have indicated, viz : to make two 
 emperors. For Davis' party urge the people never to go back 
 into the Union, and" Lincoln's party have never made any propo- 
 sition to the Southern States that they could accept. So that 
 it is evident that the Lincoln Abolition party do not want them 
 to return to the Union in its original purity, for if they did they 
 would return to it themselves, for they are as much out of the 
 Union as Davis and his party are. The union he proposes to 
 the South is that if the South shall suffer him and his Abolition 
 party to rob and take whatever property they please from the 
 South, and let them dictate to them what kind of property they 
 may own or not own, they might live with them in their rob- 
 bing government, not under the original Union in its purity, 
 but under such a union as they may see fit to establish. And I 
 wish the people of the North to examine into this matter and 
 see if they are not assisting the Abolition party, not only in 
 robbing us but also robbing themselves of every right secured 
 to them under the Constitution, and bringing them under the 
 greatest despotism on earth. Now, they are legally and 
 
155 
 
 honorably bound to protect and defend us and themselves in 
 every right secured to us and them under the Constitution of 
 the United States in the Union. For while you are aiding and 
 assisting them by their acts of legislation and acts of majorities 
 to take away our rights, you are aiding and assisthig Davis and 
 Lincoln in establishing the grandest military despotism over 
 yourselves and children that exists on the globe, under the pre- 
 tence that they are fighting for the liberty of the negro. 
 
 If they establish the right and the power in the Legisla- 
 ture to take from the people any one part of tlieir property 
 of course it would establish in them the right to take all. 
 The State Rights party have defined their power that is to 
 be placed in the Legisla,tiire, and acts of majorities, that they 
 are to be under no obligation but their own will, more than 
 any prince or potentate, neither should they suffer them- 
 selves, under any other restraint ; and that tliey had the ab- 
 solute control over the life, liberty and property of the peo- 
 ple — the clear right to declare their obligation, and, when 
 once declared, the people had no course but to obey. And 
 if they refuse to obey, so as to bring themselves under the 
 displeasure of their only and lawful sovereign, and the se- 
 vere pains and penalties affixed by her high and sovereign 
 power, the Leo-islature will not fail to provide for her self- 
 defence, the fault and folly will be their ow^n. This language 
 leaves no doubt where the sovereign power wdll be fixed. . 
 Kow, this is the power that the Davis party and the Lin- 
 coln party are trying to establish over both Korth and 
 South. Now, if those principles were established as the 
 standard of government, in place of the Constitution of the 
 United States, the Legislatures of each State being under 
 no obligation but their own will, and having no checks 
 against any act they thought proper to pass, the people 
 would have to submit to it. And those Legislatures having 
 to be elected by majorities, any fanatical body which could 
 gain the ascendency, could elect their party, and under that 
 form of government, take everything from the people. 
 
 One party might gain the ascendency to-day, and put the 
 
156 
 
 people in the possession of their rights, and to-morrow the 
 other party might gain the ascendency, and take away every- 
 thing from the people. It would be like throwing a cork on 
 the sea — it would be there to-day, but there would be no tell- 
 ing where it would be to-morrow. Life, liberty, property and 
 everything would hang on uncertainties. Now, this is the 
 kind of government that Davis and his party, and Lincoln 
 and his party are trying to establish over the North and 
 South. Tlie North has already experienced some of the ef- 
 fects of this government, for, by the acts of State Rights 
 sovereignty, and acts of majorities, they say what kind of 
 property you shall own, and what kind you shall not. Now, 
 if they ]iave the right to deny you, the right to own one 
 kind of property, they have the right to pass acts, denying 
 you the right to own any kind of property, and also to pass 
 acts that you should be their servants, and that you should 
 transfer the proceeds of your labor to them ; and, according 
 to the declarations made in their conventions, they had the 
 riglit to take everything from the people, and that they had 
 no course but to obey. And if the people refused obedience, 
 so as to bring themselves under the displeasure of their only 
 and lawful sovereign, and within the severe pains and pen- 
 alties which, in her high and sovereign power, the Legisla- 
 ture would not fail to provide for herself, the fault and folly 
 would be their own. Now, acting under this form of gov- 
 ernment, the Abolition party have first robbed the people of 
 their African property, wliich, as I have shown, the Consti- 
 tution of tlie United States had secured to every member of 
 this Union, one and the same right. 
 
 The right of owning the heathen is a right given by God 
 to Moses, by express command, "command the children of 
 Israel to take unto themselves servants of the heathen that 
 are round about them, and that they should be their ser- 
 vants, they and their children for ever." And the whole 
 Scriptures abound with proof as to the right of owning the 
 heathen as servants, and reason itself would justify it. For 
 
157 
 
 instance : look at the African in his own conntiy, and many 
 other heathens, and see what is their situation in their own 
 country, in regard to the salvation of their souls. The Scrip- 
 tures say, " there is no other name given under heaven, or 
 among men, whereby we must be saved, but the name of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ." It says, also, " he that believeth 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved, but he that believ- 
 eth not shall be condemned." It says, also, that faith cometh 
 by hearing and hearing by the preaching of the word, and 
 how can they hear without a preacher ? and how can they 
 preach unless they are sent? ISTow, in that respect, there 
 have been no preachers sent, and if they were sent, what 
 would be their condition ? They could not understand their 
 language, and if they took it in their heads, they might kill 
 and eat them. But let us put the missionary plan of civilizing 
 and christianizing the heathen on the best footing we can, 
 and see what their prospect would be. Let us send mis- 
 sionaries to Africa to civilize and christianize the Africans, 
 and they do not kill and eat them, it will take a long time 
 to learn their language, they might take sick and die — (it is 
 said to be a very sickly country) — but suppose they escape 
 being killed and eaten, and do not die with sickness, and 
 that they succeed in learning their language, and that they 
 succeed in getting the good will of the chieftain, and that 
 they could teach him and all his subjects who the true and 
 living God is, and our lost favor with God ; and the way 
 God is willing to be reconciled to us by faith in Christ, as 
 undertaking to fulfill the law, and suffer the penalties of the 
 law for us, and in our stead ; and that every one under that 
 chieftain were to become Christians, and that they would 
 begin to cultivate the soil and live in a civilized and Chris- 
 tian manner — have hogs,*horses, cattle and everything plen- 
 tiful about them — what would be their fate ? Their having 
 property about them, and plenty on which to live, would 
 only be a temptation to the neighboring savage chieftains 
 to fall upon, rob, murder and destroy them and all they pos- 
 
158 
 
 sessed. For all heathen nations are governed by nothing 
 bnt self-gratification. So they are gratified, they care not 
 how much others suffer. So, by this, you will see what 
 great blessings God has bestowed on the people of America 
 by the preachers of the Gospel, who preach the true word 
 of God — not the words of abolition and robbery, but the 
 protection of every member of the Union — not to rob the 
 master of his servant. 
 
 Now we see the awful condition the heathens are in, from 
 what I have shown. Missionaries cannot relieve the hea- 
 thens from the deplorable condition in which they are placed, 
 for in every heathen land the people are controlled by mili- 
 tary chieftains, and divided into little squads or parties, and 
 none of them lie down at night with any assurance that they 
 will be alive in the morning. ISTow, it seems to me, that the 
 true condition of the heathen is such that the missionaries 
 cannot reach their case. For this plan has been adopted by 
 man for near two thousand years, and where has one nation 
 been civilized or christianized by that plan ? Look at the 
 many Indian tribes that live among us, how many of them 
 have been christianized and civilized by missionaries? But 
 let us turn our attention to the African race, as I have shown 
 their true condition in their own country, that they have no 
 security for their own soul, life, liberty or property. Nor is 
 it possible that they could have it otherwise, in the condition 
 under which they are placed, in all lieathen nations. Let us 
 turn our attention to them under the protection of their 
 Christian masters. 
 
 They are brought to the land of light and knowledge, 
 where the true and living God is preached to all, from the 
 least to the greatest, and the plan of salvation is proclaimed 
 by the preachers of tlie Gospel, it is by and through the 
 authority of God made known, that salvation is offered to 
 all the human family, through our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, by and tlirough faith in liis satisfaction, all may be 
 saved. The African receives tliis offer, and has the cliance 
 
169 
 
 of hearing the Gospel preached, which he could not have 
 heard in his own country. There he could never have had 
 a chance to embrace the offers of salvation. 
 
 ISTow, under these circumstances, what can the Abolition- 
 ists think of themselves, who preach that they ought to be 
 left in their own country, and conceal all this light and 
 knowledge from them, which would prevent the Devil from 
 having full control over both soul and body. What credit 
 do they think they will get from God, when they go before 
 His judgment seat? God commanded the children ot Israel 
 to take unto themselves servants of the heathen round about, 
 and they should be their servants, they and their children, 
 forever. He also promised his people that He would give 
 to them the heathen for plowmen and vinedressers. 
 
 Now, the Abohtionists oppose everything that God has com- 
 manded and promised ; but, from what I have shown, the gi-eat 
 wisdom and goodness of God, has been made manifest towards 
 those Africans, whose good fortune it has been to be brought 
 here into this land of hght and knowledge, where the true and 
 living God is so fully known, that it cannot be hid, neither can 
 the plan of salvation be hid from any one who will dilligently 
 seek after it. Now, if the African had been left in his own 
 country, he and his posterity would have been deprived of this 
 great blessing. And what does the Scripture say on that 
 subject — "what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world 
 and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange 
 for his soul." Man had nothing he could give, but Christ came 
 and kept the law in our stead, and paid the penalty of the law 
 for us, and promised salvation to all who would beheve in and 
 receive the salvation freely offered, by faith, without money and 
 without price. 
 
 Now, the Abolitionists recommend us to let the Africans 
 remain in their own country, and let the Devil have full control 
 over both their soul and body. And why ? It cannot be 
 because they are free, for their life, liberty and property are in 
 the hands of their military chieftain, he can kill whom he 
 pleases, eat whom he pleases, and deprive them of every right 
 the human family should enjoy, just as the Lincoln party and 
 
160 
 
 the Davis party are trying to do with the people both North 
 and South. 
 
 But let us further examine the condition of the African 
 servant in our Christian land, and see if there is any truth in 
 what the Abolitionists represent. "We see what unspeakable 
 blessings are bestowed on them, as it regards the salvation of 
 their souls. But the Abolitionists say we make them work for 
 us, and give them nothing for their work. Let us see if that is 
 true. In the first place they are bought by then- master, or 
 become his by inheritance, the master controls their savage and 
 heathen principles, and brings them under the rules of civiliza- 
 tion, and teaches them who the true God is, and the plan of 
 salvation. He furnishes them a home to live in, food and 
 clothing; land to work, horses, wagons, and tools of every kind 
 necessary to work with, instructs them and directs their labor 
 to advantage by himself or his agent. He protects them from 
 imposition from any source whatever, his interest binds him to 
 do this if there was no humanity in the case. But as the 
 servant is his money, the master has a double interest in him. 
 The servant has his master's interest and humanity, both, to 
 secure his protection. It could not benefit the owner to oppress 
 him, nor yet to hurt him, unless he committed crimes which 
 would require punishment to prevent his committing them 
 again. So that a servant who is bought with money, and works 
 for his master, has a greater security against injustice and 
 oppression than the servant who works for money or wages. 
 If the servant's master owns his wife and children also, he feeds 
 and clothes them, if they belong to another master, he feeds, 
 clothes and takes care of them. If they get sick, he calls in 
 the best physician, and nurses them attentively until they either 
 die or recover. The interest that the master has in him as his 
 money, as well as the interest of humanity, makes him willing 
 to do all he can for him. 
 
 But how is it with the hired servant at the North, or in any 
 other part of the country. Those who hire them care nothing 
 for them, more than to get as much work out of them for as 
 little money as they possibly can, and a great many cheat them 
 out of nearly all of their hard earned and scanty wages. If 
 
161 
 
 their family is sick, their distress is not cared for, and perhaps 
 the husband has not means to employ a physician, and cannot 
 spare time to give the attention needed to his family. If their 
 true condition was faithfully pictured out, it would be found 
 to be deplorable, and much worse than the condition of the 
 Africans, which the Abolitionists pity so much. 
 
 The Abolitionists at the North prefer to make servants of 
 white men, while the people of the South prefer to have 
 servants of the heathen, as God has commanded. Here, 
 they have a chance to receive all the blessings of life and 
 security, and all the blessings of that free salvation assured 
 by Jesus Christ, which the Abolitionists are trying to de- 
 prive them of. But this is the only plea that Lincoln and 
 his Abolition party have to make war on the people of the 
 South. And why ? Because the people of the South are 
 not willing to let these Abolitionists rob them of their Afri- 
 can property, and become united with their robbing party, 
 who have first robbed every member of the Union in their 
 own States by acts of majorities and acts of legislation, of 
 all the rights secured to them by the Constitution. Because 
 if they establish the right in the acts of legislation and the 
 acts of majorities, to take from the people one part of their 
 property, it would establish the right to take your 
 life/liberty and all your property, which power is really 
 claimed by the conventions of disunionists, both N^orth and 
 South, calling themselves Democrats, when there is not one 
 particle of democracy in one principle they have adopted, 
 as a standard of government. For that which constitutes 
 pure democracy, is where the people all govern, and that 
 can only be done by having a written agreement on the 
 principles by which they all agree to be governed, and gov- 
 ern all others, and protect and defend each right, liberty, 
 person and property of each individual contained in that 
 writing ; that would be true democracy. 
 
 Now, do the principles adopted either by Davis or 
 
 Lincoln do that ? Are not both their acts and their declara- 
 11 
 
162 
 
 tions the very reverse, as I have already shown ? Now, 
 could it be possible, that Lincoln and his Abolition party 
 could have such great love for the negro that they would 
 give away the life of two Northern citizens, just for the sake 
 of getting one negro away from his master ? I am certain 
 that they will have to give the life of two ISTorthern citizens 
 for every negro they take from his master, besides the vast 
 amount of debt and distress they will bring upon the peo- 
 ple. .. But they pretend they are trying to bring the South- 
 ern States back into the Union of the Constitution of the 
 United States. For it provides that every citizen be secure 
 in their persons, papers, houses and effects, and that security 
 shall be preserved inviolably. But is this what Lincoln and 
 his party are doing ? 'No. He raised an army and came 
 upon the South, killing, and robbing and threatening to take 
 away the entire African property of the Southern people, 
 while this property is more strongly secured and protected, 
 under the Constitution, than any other property in the 
 United States. 
 
 Now, when Lincoln and his party are robbing, killing 
 and destroying citizens, whom they are bound by oath to 
 defend and support, can he or his party be members of the 
 Union? Does not the Constitution provide that the citizens 
 of each State shall have free ingress and egress, to and from 
 any other State, and take his property with him ; and that 
 no imposition duties or restrictions shall be laid by any State 
 upon the property of the United States, or any of them ? 
 Have not the Abolition party violated all these agreements ? 
 Docs not the Constitution provide that no law or regulation 
 shall be made by any State to discharge a servant, or person 
 bound to service, due to a citizen of another State ? But if 
 a servant, or person bound to service, should escape to an- 
 other State, they shall be bound to give up such servant, or 
 person bound to service. 
 
 Now, has not Lincoln and his party violated every obli- 
 gation of the Union in that respect ? He admits that those 
 
163 
 
 who own servants are members of the Union, and violates 
 the Union to tliem, and if thej will not remain in his rob- 
 bing Union, he will bring his robbing army upon the people 
 of the South and take away everything from them, if they 
 do not snbmit to his robbery. They also denied the citizens 
 of the South a right to settle with their property in the ter- 
 ritories, which belonged as much to the South as to them, 
 or more, for their own acts put them out of the Union, and, 
 legally, they had no riglit in the Union. 
 
 Now, this will show to the people of the North that Lincoln 
 and his Abolition party are not fighting to ^jreserve the Union, 
 but to destroy it. And I have no doubt, in my mind, that Da- 
 vis and Lincoln are acting together for the same purpose — that 
 is, to make a King in each State, and themselves Emperors. 
 For the whole of those plans and principles have been adopted 
 by lawyers , and if they succeed in establishing a king in every 
 State, it will require a great many officers to carry out the gov- 
 ernment of these royalties ; and, of course, those offices wUl be 
 filled with lawyers. 
 
 Now, take this vics^ of their principles adopted, and you can 
 see some sense in their proceedings ; but, view it in any other 
 light, and it will seem utter folly and ignorance. Now, froift 
 what I have shown, it is impossible that either of those two 
 parties are trying to protect the people in their constitutional 
 rights, while both parties adopted the same principles to de- 
 stroy them. It cannot be denied but that the Abolition party 
 did rob the people of the North of their African property by 
 acts of legislation and acts of majorities of separate States. 
 This is the very same principle that the Davis State Rights 
 party are contending for. Now, you wUi see from what I have 
 shown, that the object of these two military chieftains is not to 
 fix principles to protect the people in their rights, but to place 
 them in a situation that they can rob and take everything from 
 them. They knew that they had to destroy the Constitution 
 before they could do that. So take that view, and you see 
 sense in the Davis party for quitting the Union, and giving Lin- 
 coln and his party all the shipping, navy, arms, ammunition 
 territories and everything, to get out of the Union, under the 
 
164 
 
 pretence of protecting the people against Lincoln and his Abo- 
 lition party, when they were, at the same time, adopting prin- 
 ciples as strong as words or language could express, to sustain 
 the Abolitionists, as I have already shown. 
 
 Now, I wish the people of the North to fully understand that 
 the object of the Lincoln party is not to give the negro liberty, 
 but to bring the negro under the grandest tyranny upon earth, 
 and the whites along with them. I consider the people of the 
 South and North innocent of all, except suffering themselves to 
 be fanaUcised and deluded by the influence of these lawyers- 
 But I know they are a slick-tongued kind of people. I wish to 
 inform the North that if they persist in aiding Lincoln and his 
 Abolition party in robbing the people of the South of their Af- 
 rican property, they may expect to give the lives of two sons, 
 or the women two husbands for every negro, small or great, 
 they take from their owners. The people of the South are all 
 united on that jDoint. 
 
 What right has Lincoln and his party to come to our homes 
 and firesides to rob and plunder us ? The South has the just 
 right, by the law of God and man, to kill every one that comes 
 on that errand, and will do it as long as there is a man to fight ; 
 we will be right, and you will be wrong. It is clear that Lin- 
 coln's object is not to preserve the Union, for, if it was, he 
 would go back to the Union. And then he might, with some 
 propriety, say to the South, I have erred myself, and failed to 
 comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Let us both 
 return to it. I will, for the future, comply with all the terms 
 of the Union. Let us be friends and helpmates to each other, 
 against all attacks made against us, on any account whatever. 
 Then he would look more like he wished to preserve the Union. 
 
 But, in place of his doing that, he raises a great army, after 
 doing the South so much injury and injustice under his Abolition 
 principles, and begins to rob, kill and take everything from the 
 people ; but proposes to make peace if the South will suffer him 
 to rob them as much as he pleases. This is the kind of gov- 
 ernment Lincoln offers to the South, and Davis' party offer the 
 people of the South the same kind of government. 
 
 Now, the people need never expect peace from the Lincoln 
 
165 
 
 party nor from the Davis party, until they get the people all 
 under military power, and then they will make peace with each 
 other, and agree that each one shall be emperor, and assist each 
 other to sustain the power over the people, as I have already 
 described. 
 
 Now, I have endeavored to show how these two political 
 chieftains deceived and got the people under their power. In 
 the first place, the disunion party, a small party of their deluded 
 followers, under the appearance of calling a Convention, pro- 
 nounced the people of South Carolina out of the Union, (with- 
 out asking the people's consent either,) and called on the people 
 to form themselves under a military organization, to protect 
 their homes, their firesides and their families, and pretended to 
 form a constitution after the form of the original, but never 
 consulted the people. All this was said to be done on account 
 of the Abolition raiders. They declared South Carolina to be 
 separate and sovereign. The Union claimed the port of Charles- 
 ton, and collected the revenue of all the impost duties. Lin- 
 coln sent his vessel, they fired on it, took possession of all the 
 public property they could lay their hands on. This gave Lin- 
 coln an excuse to come with an army, which he did, without 
 any authority but his own. That gave Davis' party an excuse 
 to call for volunteers to protect their rights against the Aboli- 
 tionists, and, in this way, they managed to get up military 
 power. 
 
 Now, Lincoln pretended that he was protecting the Union, 
 while every act he did Avas violating it. But Davis' party hav- 
 ing withdrawn from the Union, j)laced those that v.'ere friends 
 of the Union of other States so that they could not help the 
 South, and the friends of the Union at the South could not as- 
 sist Lincoln's Abolition principles, and could not join the North. 
 
 Now, this is the way the friends of the Union, in its purity, 
 have been swindled out of their government. So you see those 
 two political chieftains are not fools, but through their intrigues 
 and ingenuity have, so far, accomplished everything they have 
 attempted. I have now endeavored to show the people of the 
 South and North, the deplorable condition they have been 
 brought into, under the direction of these two military chief- 
 
166 
 
 tains. And now I wish to point out a plan to get out of this 
 military power, and get the people all out of the war to their 
 homes and deserted families — children to their parents — hus- 
 bands to their wives and children. There is but one way that 
 I know of, in which it can be done. Let the legislatures of 
 every State, North and South, call for an armistice for ninety 
 days, and, at the same time, call for a peace convention of every 
 State, North and South. I have written out a platform for all 
 to examine, which, I think, no man can object to who has any 
 desire to do right, with many explanations to guide the mind 
 and assist the judgment of every member of the legislatures 
 of the United States, North and South. And to show that the 
 course I point out is legal and constitutional, I will call your at- 
 tention to the Constitution, which you all have been sworn to 
 support and defend. 
 
 There are two ways for calling a convention provided, one is 
 by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress ; the other by two- 
 thirds of the Legislatures of the several States. The States of 
 the South, still living under the constitutional government, are, 
 or ought to be, in accordance with the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States, and have never been admitted to be out of the Union 
 of the other States, And, in accordance with the powers 
 claimed for each State, by the Lincoln and Secession parties, 
 that every State had the right to decide for herself, and choose 
 her own mode and measure of redress, the remedy I propose 
 will not be in violation of the rights claimed by the secession- 
 ists, and it will be in accordance with the Constitution of the 
 United States. Under these circumstances, let the legislatures 
 of the several States call for an armistice for ninety days under 
 the original Union, in its purity. You need not suppose that 
 Lincoln's party, or Davis' party either, will assist you in the 
 work of reconstruction of the Union ; for, from all appear- 
 ances, both their intentions, from the beginning, were to 
 destroy the Union, and place the people under the greatest 
 tyranny and oppression in the world. 
 
 Now, if you can succeed in redeeming the people out of their 
 deplorable condition, your names will be handed down to pos- 
 terity as the redeemers of your country from the greatest tyranny 
 
167 
 
 on earth, and the restorers of the tree of liberty from the hands 
 of tyranny, which may, in time, spread its shadow over the 
 whole earth; and all men will call you blessed to the end of 
 time. 
 
 Now, I wish to apprise you of a danger that will follow, if 
 you members do not act on this plan immediately. If you ne- 
 glect to attend to calling for an armistice, and for a peace con- 
 vention, through the members of the legislatures of each State, 
 until Lincoln can get the people of all the Northern States un- 
 der his military power, he and the Davis party will be fixed, so 
 that they can pass laws that if any one should speak against, or r e- 
 sist in any manner, any act they may pass, the penalty will be 
 death. And having their military court arranged according to 
 the plan of the South Carolina Ordinance, and jjlacing the 
 citizen in a situation in which he could n ot traverse his case, 
 they could try him without his case being plead. Now, you 
 see, under this military court, they having the law and the sword 
 in their own hands, they could commence making kings in every 
 State, and unite their nationalities in two emperors. 
 
 You will see in their conventions they have laid the founda- 
 tions to establish all these things. All they lack of establishing 
 their power over the people is, that Lincoln has not fully got 
 the military power over the North, like Davis has .over the 
 South. Now, from what I have shown, you will see the great 
 necessity of immediate action on your part to make the move 
 more certain. It might be proper, on the part of the legisla - 
 tures, to have this pamphlet printed into as many copies as will 
 furnish every voter in every county in each State, and also a 
 copy to each officer and soldier in each State, call for their 
 votes, if they are willing to come under this platform as a 
 standard of government that I have explained, which is only 
 the principles properly explained in the original Constitution of 
 the United States in its purity, and I will venture to say there 
 will be more than three-fdUrths, if not all, who will agree to be 
 bound by it to support and defend it, North and South, except 
 those who want to destroy it. But suppose you fail to adopt 
 or act on this plan of a remedy, I know of no other that yo u 
 could adopt to escape utter ruin and destruction, and if you do 
 
168 
 
 not, let me show yoii the'evil that wall come upon you. They 
 will create kings over you, and emperors, you will be taxed to 
 build imlaces for them to live in, taxed to supply them with a 
 suflScient amount of money j^to live in princely royalty and 
 grandeur; you will bej^taxed to supply all th^ officers necessary 
 to keep up this royalty and grandeur. You will also have your 
 sons dragged from you, under the name of conscripts, to pro- 
 tect them against any resistance,'^ and the people will be taxed 
 to feed and clothe this army. 
 
 All those taxes will be levied not to supply the wants of 
 the government, but to supply' the wants of those who have, 
 through deceit and flattery, brought you under this destruction 
 and ruin, besides all those heavy debts already brought on us 
 by those two military chie ftains. They have already claimed, 
 in their conventions, that they have the absolute control over 
 both the lives, liberties and property of the people, and that 
 they had the right to take everything from the people, and they 
 are doing it now as fast as they can, all under the pretence of 
 protecting the people against one ^another. Now, all the real 
 wants of government are not included in the taxes I have men. 
 tioned. They would have it in their jsower to build monuments, 
 extravagant public works, and all kinds of extravagance. For 
 you must recollect that the sovereUjn^ be it a State or a man, 
 was to be under no obligation but their own will, so I do not 
 wish to make any false representations. It is evident that they 
 did not intend for the sovereignty to remain in the legislatures, 
 for their declaration was that they would not admit of any 
 allegiance to any other authority than that of the State, and 
 those to whom the State might transfer that allegiance. So it 
 is evident they intended a transfer, which must be to a king and 
 emperor. 
 
 Now, under the Constitution, there is neither king nor 
 emperor. Neither is there power to tax the people for any- 
 thing but the real necessary wants <>f government. They owe 
 no allegiance to any except to one another. Now let us see 
 what was our situation under the Constitution as a standard of 
 government in its purity, if all parties had compUed Avith the 
 obligations established under it. We were the happiest and 
 
169 
 
 securest people in all our rights, liberties and privileges upon 
 the face of the globe. We had every right that the human 
 family ought to possess. We had a right to work when we 
 pleased, and at whatever we thought fit; we had free trade 
 with the whole world ; no tax nor duty to pay on any article we 
 exported out of our own country ; at home no duty to pay on 
 any article passing from one State to another State. The 
 written agreement that existed between us, secured all these 
 rights and liberties, besides hundreds of others in our own 
 government, as well as our rights through commercial treaties 
 with other governments, which were secured as well as could be 
 done imder those favorable circumstances. We increased in 
 wealth and prosperity beyond any people ever known. From a 
 small niimber we increased, in less than a hundred years, to 
 become a powerful nation of people. Through commercial 
 intercourse with the whole world we were put in possession of 
 every luxury produced upon earth. We were at peace with all 
 nations on the face of the globe, and the interest that all 
 nations had in our commerce was calculated to preserve peace 
 so long as we acted justly and uprightly with them. Our flag 
 was honored in every country and clime ; our citizens were 
 treated more like kings than citizens ; our Government was 
 called the "Father of Liberty," and so it was, it was a home for 
 the distressed or oppressed ; the widow's stay and the orphan's 
 protector ; it was kind to the poor, and fed the hungry, not only 
 in her own land, but through her commerce, fed thousands in 
 other lands. And all the people called her blessed. 
 
 We had increased in wealth and numbers until no two gov- 
 ernments on earth combined could have conquered us, and left 
 a sufficient number at home to protect themselves. Now, if we 
 will continue to exert ourselves, and make every effort to obtain 
 an honorable peace, we may yet be restored to our former 
 greatness and happiness. 
 
 Now, it will be seen that all the other States that came to 
 assist South Carolina, against Lincoln's treasonable proceedings 
 against South Carolina, cannot be guilty of treason ; because no 
 case had been brought against the proceedings of those who 
 claimed a right to secede from the Union. By law, and in the 
 
170 
 
 eye of the law, every one is considered innocent until they are 
 found guilty. Now, Lincoln had no right to decide the case, 
 "whatever, and no authority to do any thing, only what was 
 delegated by the Constitution, but he was acting according to 
 the platform adopted by Mr. Calhoun, to decide for himself, 
 choose his own mode and manner of defence, like Mr. Cal- 
 houn's j)arty did in their convention. 
 
 Now, a Convention under the Constitution has no power 
 given to it to judge any case whatever ; their power is all dele- 
 gated, like all other agents appointed or elected by the people. 
 And all the power that was delegated to them was, to adopt 
 amendments, but no power to establish a single one of them. 
 It had no power but to propose amendments, and then it re- 
 quired the consent of three-fourths of the States before it 
 could be adopted ; so that Lincoln's decision and Calhoun's, 
 each are deciding for themselves, choosing their own mode 
 and measure of defence stand on the same ground or footing — 
 both pretending that they are contending for the rights of the 
 Union, when both are claiming the rights of monarchs over the 
 people more than any king, prince or potentate in any civilized 
 land on earth. 
 
 Lincoln had as much right to decide for himself, and choose 
 his own mode and measure of redress, because he was Presi- 
 dent, as Calhoun and his party had a right to decide for them- 
 selves, and choose their own mode and measure of redress in a 
 convention. So they both stand on the same foundation, with- 
 out a shadow of right or authority. So that these two parties 
 cannot be anything but mobs, and I have always been of the 
 opinion that they Avere acting in concert, in order to get the 
 people under military power, so that they could force them 
 imder a monarchical government, (as Mr. Calhoun said in his 
 book on governments.) 
 
 Now, all the people of every State, who are members of the 
 Union, have a right to protect the people of the South from the 
 robbery of Lincoln, in accordance with the agreement under 
 the Constitution, because you will see that this Convention had 
 no authority to throw them out ; nor do I consider any of them 
 out. The people never gave their consent to go out, and the 
 whole of the convention movement was unconstitutional, null 
 
171 
 
 and void, and Lincoln's is the same. This was as great and ty- 
 rannical a* assumption of power, both by Lincoln's party and 
 Calhoun's party, as ever existed since the globe was created ; 
 and^it is high time that the people should assume the authority 
 of their own government, and act in accordance with it, and 
 protect each other against those great usurpers, North and 
 South. 
 
 But let us stop the shedding of blood — call for a peace con- 
 vention, and call for an armistice. Let there be a member from 
 every county, elected by the people in every State throughout 
 the Union. And let a platform be laid down by wise and good 
 men, or by one man, and let the principles be laid down to give 
 strict justice and equality to each member of the Union, with- 
 out any regard to parties. There can be but two parties, one 
 right, and the other wrong. So if we can arrange and establish 
 such laws as a standard of government, that wUl protect right 
 against wrong, and provide a security for every member of the 
 Union. For we are not bound under the Union to protect any 
 but those who are members of the Union. If every member 
 can be protected in his just rights against wrong, and made se- 
 secure in his rights, that is the kind of government, I think, 
 wUl, or ought to suit everybody. Such a platform as that I 
 have written, or have attempted to write out, and for those 
 express purposes. 
 

 ^^^/^ 
 

 
 I".*'' .; 
 
 ••V\.' 
 
 
 
 
 
 v^^ .-■■ 
 
 
 
 ■^^ 
 
 
 ,\^ . V I « 
 
 

 ?:^ ''^^ 
 
 
 G 
 
 ' ''^ "^ '^ <- ': ' " A 
 
 "/ 
 
 
 
 
 
 '"^ '■♦ 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^ ^■.-./' ^-\.xn\. >-.'%, '"--^ .^^o. .. <: 
 
 
 "9^