&' 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ 
 
Southern Rights and Co-opera- 
 tion Documents. 
 
 LETTER FROM 
 
 HON. T. J. WITHERS, 
 
 Addressed to the Committee of Invitation of the Co-opera- 
 tion Meeting, held at Yorkville, S. C, on the 6th Aug. 
 
 Camden^ SOih July, 1851. 
 
 Gentlemen : — You must prevail upon the people of York Dis- 
 trict to excuse me for declining to appear and address them, as 
 I am invited to do. While employed in the Judiciary depart- 
 ment of their government, I am dedicated to a very exacting 
 and delicate service, best performed by a careful abstinence 
 from the heat of partizan bias, and thus giving earnest that I 
 seek to maintain the equanimity which warrants a confidence, 
 on all hands, that I am to do right to every litigant before me. 
 This consideration has no manner of affinity to that pompous 
 pretension that would place a Judge above the question of the 
 day, (of the greatest gravity in my estimation,) or above the 
 people, with whom he must face it ; all ready to do so (I hope) 
 with courageous resolution. My notion is, that a true sense of 
 propriety (though it reinfoices a long cherished disposition) ad- 
 monishes me to shun any temptation that might draw me into 
 the vortex of popular commotion. 
 
 In addition to this, my views, upon the matter you are about 
 to consider, have been rendered to certain gentlemen of Green- 
 ville ; and I suppose the newspaper press has made them acces- 
 sible to such of my friends of York as may desire to know what 
 they are. I yet adhere to them : and venture to say, that they 
 ought to be received as free from guile, whether wise or not ; 
 for (save only their unbought good opinfon) what can the peo- 
 ple now give me that I could accept 1 Nothing else, I aver, do 
 I covet, or ever did. 
 
 From the earliest budding forth of the scheme of giving to 
 South Carolina a separate, isolated nationality, I have been an 
 unbeliever in its wisdom and efficacy. Except two or three 
 
v^ 
 
 (who seem not to have recruited disciples of that particular ar- 
 ticle of faith,) nobody commends this scheme of solitude as a 
 desirable condition in itself We are assured, however, ihat it 
 must work out the result of co-operation by other States, in 
 like condition with this, in military operations, (if the oc- 
 casion should require these,) and ultimately in an organized 
 federation; that to this attitude the issues we shall create will 
 force our colleagues, by the overwhelming stimulus of inter- 
 est and the burning sublimity of pride. 
 
 Gentlemen, beware of that council which teaches you to rely 
 upon a friendship — to serve you upon the battle-field, or in 
 council — that is procured by duress. Beware, when you per- 
 ceive that those who promise it are discarding the admonitions 
 of the very equals to whom they are intent upon applying the 
 forcing process — that the very hope itself rests upon the Phar- 
 isaical presumption, that our colleagues, in a common cause, 
 are now beneath or behind us in spirit, or in the knowledge of 
 their own rights and duties. Beware of those who assure you 
 of the cordial friendship and co-operation of neighbors, by ren- 
 dering their commerce, if need be, the prey of privateers, plun- 
 dering under the flag and authority of the Independent Nation 
 of South-Carolina; of that counsel which, in one breath, lures 
 you by the fascinations of plethoric purses, swollen by the con- 
 tributions of smuggling, and in the next scouts as ignoble any 
 regard for property or life, when the glories of martyrdom 
 beckon on the State to an illustrious sacrifice. Too long and 
 too often have some of our people heretofore given cause or 
 pretext to the Southern States, or some of them, to impute to 
 us, in matters of common concern, a temper of domineering ar- 
 rogance. At this great crisis, when a mighty common interest 
 is at stake, when the foe counts as the sands on the sea-shore, 
 when the spirit of aggression is waxing fierce rnough to ad- 
 monish us all that it must be met, and can be successfully met 
 alone by our whole power, marshalled in concerted organiza- 
 tion, let not this small State take one "doubtful step forbidden 
 by the advice and judgment of her comrades — let her not yet 
 assume, by word or deed, that they are craven, corrupt, or stu- 
 pid ; above all, let her not vault into the saddle and usurp the 
 whip. 
 
 The main purpose of this letter is to cite your attention to a 
 domestic specimen of the forcing process, and its result, now 
 in course of exhibition here at home. 
 
 When the Legislature of this State last assembled, the atten- 
 tion of the people, as a mass, had been directed alone to the 
 
combination among the Southern States, aimed at, through the 
 agency of a Convention at Nashville. The hope entertained 
 from that movement was, 1st, That Congress, then engao-ed 
 upon the territorial questions, might be restrained from a threat- 
 ened s-«oliation and insult to the South, and an infringement 
 upon our rights ; or 2d, failing that, some concerted measure, 
 looking to redress and protection, might be commended to the 
 several States aggrieved. The scheme of unconccrted disunion 
 by . outh-Carolina alone, had then entered into but few heads, 
 though it had taken possession of some. When the Convention 
 bill was passed, it was assumed, that the temper of the people 
 was up, or could be raised, to this line of exalted intensity; not 
 from any evidence, I apprehend, given at the polls in October, 
 1850, but, probably, from the testimony of newspapers and 
 resolutions of Southern Rights Associations. The unsatisfac- 
 tory lethargy thought to be discovered in the iXashville Con- 
 vention — the disappointment of expectation from Georgia — the 
 incipient movements in Mississippi, and, not least, the vehement 
 rhetoric of debate, aggravated by a difference between the two 
 houses, in the first instance — determined a majority of the Le- 
 gislature to adopt a singular measure, which, at one and the 
 same time, provided for a representation of this State in a 
 Southern Congress, which was courted for concerted co-opera- 
 tion, and for a Convention to consider of the recommendations 
 of such a Congress, and also — "for the further purpose of taking 
 into consideration the general welfare of this State, in view of 
 her relations to the laws and government of the United States, 
 and thereupon to take care that the CommonweaUh of South- Car- 
 olina shall suffer no detriment^ It was further provi (cd, that 
 if not called together, by the Governor, prior to the next session, 
 in consequence of the action of a Southern Congress, "this Gen- 
 eral Assembly shall, by a majority of votes, fix the time for the 
 meeting of the said Convention." 
 
 Nothing on the face of this measure, fore-shadowed the iso- 
 lated, separate secession of South-Carolina. Certainl}'' some 
 members (some of your own, it appears) voted for it with no 
 such object in contemplation. The people had never spoken, 
 in any intelligible and authoritative manner, on the policy of 
 calling the Convention at all — much less on the question of 
 what it should do. 
 
 Now we hear it affirmed, that the State is pledged to sepa- 
 rate secession through the Convention. Where is the evidence? 
 Have a majority of the members of thai body made the pledge? 
 I am not aware of it, nor do I believe it. Some of the wisest 
 
among them have, I know, made no pledge at all. Whoever 
 did make any was, in my opinion, not wise in that act — and 
 this (very probably) is his own opinion now. Some, as I learn, 
 thought (as matter of individual sentiment at the time) that the 
 State ought to take final action, but reserved a free vote upon 
 the course of policy. Some may have entered the shambles. 
 If so, I ask with what propriety? Each political division of 
 the State agreed, by the act calling the Convention, with every 
 other, that it would send delegates to a Convention to do what? 
 To vote the State out of all connexion with everj^ other State 
 in the Confederacy? By no means ; but to consider with their 
 compeers sent trom other districts, the "general welfare of this 
 State," in view of federal relations, and "to take care that the 
 Commonwealth of South-Carolina shall suffer no detriment." 
 Was this contract faithfully executed by that political body 
 which pledged its delegates to vote only for separate secession? 
 But no matter what pledges were executed or given — I again 
 enquire, what proportion of the voters of this State have en- 
 dorsed them? Nobody will deny that a meagre minority only 
 voted at the polls, which, in many cases, was itself much divi- 
 ded. Did those, who remained at home, acquiesce in the doc- 
 trine of separate secession ? Why, it is by no means clear that 
 those who carried the election were in favor of that measure, 
 or are now. A process of development is now going on which 
 will manifest, I think, that a majority of this State are not in 
 the position assigned to them by writers and orators on seces- 
 sion — that in fact they are neither for separate, isolated inde- 
 pendence, nor for abandoning the steady purpose of working 
 out, by adequate and practicable means, the salvation of our 
 institutions. I remember that, pending the election in Charles- 
 ton, a paper of that city accounted on Tuesday morning, for the 
 meagre vote of Monday, by reasons of the torrents from the 
 clouds on that day — but predicted that the bright sky of Tues- 
 day would multiply them amply. The prediction failed. It 
 was forthwith announced that so little division of opinion pre- 
 vailed in Charleston that there was nothing to arouse the mass. 
 How stands the matter now, in that quarter ? 
 
 Certain writers and orators deprecate these developments, 
 and charge upon such meetings as you have in view the sin of 
 dividing this people into parties. It is my purpose to inquire, 
 if this be an iniquity; and if so, who is responsible for it. 
 
 Surely we may affirm, that the members of the Convention 
 
 are not averse to an accurate exposition of the true sentiments 
 
 . and wishes of the public. That, above all things, they need ; 
 
and they did not derive it from the polls, in February last, un- 
 less it be in the emptiest, most technical and uncertain sense. 
 Who, then, complain and pray, that there be no strife, no divis- 
 ion among us ? Are they not those who contrived a Convention, 
 after the mature wisdom of Cheves and Barnwell, had strongly 
 admonished against it, and after it had been once defeated in 
 the Representatives house, and who ordained the election in 
 hot haste ? Are ihey not those who contrived and managed a 
 demonstration in May last, in Charleston, which was intended 
 to supply thp. deliciences of that election ; to give a favorite 
 interpretation lo the rotund language of the Convention bill — 
 to the meaning of "general welfare" and the injunction "to take 
 care that this Commonwealth shall suffer no detriment," to 
 influence the action of a minority Convention in favor of a 
 scheme heretofore hidden from the general publjc ; to supply 
 (it was hoped) substance — bone, muscle, arteries — to the /b/m 
 that had been presented by the election of February ? Have 
 they not, then, created the necessity upon those who do not con- 
 cur in their commentaries upon language, in their exposition 
 of a fact, in their plan of statesmanship or policy, either to ac- 
 quiesce in all, while they do not approve or to speak cut ad- 
 versely ? 
 
 Is it asked why you did not speak at the polls when you had 
 the opportunity? The question can be answered, and it can 
 be shown, I think, why a, large majority did not speak at all, 
 also why (as I strongly suspect) some of those who did, knew 
 not what they spoke. 
 
 The. election for members of the Convention was ordered to 
 be held on the second Monday in February and day following — 
 held on the heels of the adjournment of the Legislature. The 
 act, ordaining it, exhiVjited the object in features comely enough 
 — features that the people had been accustomed to contemplate. 
 They showed forth a Southern Congress and Convention here 
 to aid that body, and to take care that the Commonwealth re- 
 ceived no detriment. If a plain man had actually read it, and 
 if time had been given to the people to see it, or hear of it, (a 
 people who had concurred in the objects and recommendations 
 of the Nashville Convention.) there was no word likely to ex- 
 cite a suspicion that more was meant than met the eye. I 
 doubt if it will be denied by any one who is acquainted with 
 the evidence, on the subject, that the early day of election was 
 fixed on the following considerations : "mischief will result 
 from delay — that is to say, from discussion before the people — 
 postponement will allay the fervor of the public heat. Our 
 
6 
 
 speeches here and the press have raised it to a white heat — 
 let us strike while the iron is hot — let us adopt a solemn pro- 
 ceeding, which, under a proper management by organized so- 
 cieties, shall commit the State before discord shall creep in and 
 shake his shaggy locks." 
 
 Well, a few attended the polls. There, raemb rs of organ- 
 ized societies were active. The miss of the people were qui- 
 escent at home. Many were ignorant that any election was 
 going on. None were disposed to do a single act, or say a 
 word, that, at home or abroad, could be construed into "aid 
 and comfort" to the enem3^ The loudest clamorers against the 
 Compromise assumed the function of special patriots ; few of 
 the rank and file dreamed of ulterior designs. The strongest 
 words, that could be obtained, were extracted from those who 
 were set up for candidates and wanted to be elected. The 
 election, thus conducted, being finished, a loud shout proceeds 
 from an unanimous and a co-operating press, that South-Caro- 
 lina had now resolved and appointed her agents accordingly, 
 to take that separate station, among her co States "and the rest 
 of mankind," to which God and nature had entitled her — that 
 others might imitate or not, as they pleased. Even this, the 
 great mass of the people, began to hear only when the echo 
 was caught up and reverberated by a self-constituted Conven- 
 tion in Charleston. 
 
 Having resolved on no such thing, but intent only on what 
 the)^ had learned of the poli(;y recommended by the Nashville 
 Convention and in the speech there delivered by Mr. Cheves 
 (indorsed by our own Senate,) how could it be otherwise, than 
 that the people, when roused to look around them, when for the 
 first time brought to a knowledge of what has been done and 
 what is designed (all said to be ratified under their name and 
 authority,) when facetiously told that nobody dreamed of sepa- 
 rate secession before the Convention meets — should take the 
 liberty ©f defining their own position, and declaring that they 
 stand, as yet, where they stood before, upon the platform of the 
 Nashville Convention ? If discussion at home comes of this, 
 and that dissension be disastrous — to whom will the disaster 
 come ? It may, to be sure, fahnfy the prophecies of those who 
 never had any right to propliecy. The threats of the self-ap- 
 pointed may not be redeemed in the precise man'ier and with 
 the vigorous rapidity so congenial to theoretical explorers in 
 the unknown of political philosophy. But I have a calm con- 
 fidence that no disaster will be worked to the great cause of 
 Southern rights and regeneration, if our Convention should for- 
 bear secession during its term of life. The attack upon us will 
 
be too formidable (for however cautious the leaders mean to be 
 they can't restrain the purblind zealots in the ranks,) the means 
 of resistance are too abundant and obvious, the issue is too mo- 
 mentous to lead me to believe that "a tale of submission" will 
 ever be written of the slaveholding South. Of one thin"- 1 am 
 more certain — it is this — to surprise the people into a great or- 
 ganic change, or a revolution, is a very paltry sort of States- 
 manship. I have the authority of our own Constitution (which 
 I esteem more highly than the figments of any man's brain) to 
 say this. 
 
 Did any man who has read it, ever dream, that when one 
 entire government was to be pulled down and another construc- 
 ted, our course of proceeding should be such, as has been adop- 
 ted in this case ? That this rugged journey was to be performed 
 by a single bound '? It appears to me, that for a Legislature, 
 not elected with reference to such a matter, in view of an en- 
 terprise so momentous, conceived for a purpose in which so 
 many other States have the same concern, with a hostile lorce 
 every where to be found beyond our borders, to call a Conven- 
 tion, order the election in some six weeks, declare the object in 
 general and ambiguous phrase, must surprise a man who reads 
 the eleventh article of our Constitution of 1790. 
 
 It is therein declared, that even that Constitution shall be^ in 
 no particular, altered, except by a bill read three times in each 
 House of our Legislature, and agreed to by two-thirds of the 
 whole representation; and which shall then be published three 
 months previous to a new electit n of Representatives ; and 
 shall become a part of the Constitution, only when having been 
 again read three times in each House, it shall be agreed to by 
 two-thirds of the whole representation therein. 
 
 How does the hot haste of the present occasion, when the 
 design is said to be to uproot entire fundamental structures and 
 reconstruct others, compare with the cool deliberation secured 
 to the people and the solemn ratification required of them, be- 
 fore the most inconsiderable phrase of our State Constitution 
 can be changed ? 
 
 I maintain, therefore, that the people are right to make known 
 their opinions by way of instruction to their delegates in Con- 
 vention, be those opinions w^hat they may. If unhappy conse- 
 quences result, I think I have shewn at whose door they lie. 
 
 I close here, gentlemen, because I wish to abuse your pa- 
 tience no longer. 
 
 Your obedient servant, T. J. WITHERS. 
 
 To Messrs. T. J. Bell, W. I. Clawsok, John B. Jackson, York- 
 ville, S. C. 
 
WHAT B®E!S SECESSIOI^ MESISTI 
 
 The Stnte ought to secede. 
 
 Why ? 
 
 Because she has pledged herself to resist ' 
 
 Resist what ? 
 
 The aggressions of the Government. 
 
 "What aggressions ? 
 
 The admission of California with her anti-slavery constitution ; the unjust territo- 
 rial bills, and the law abolishing the slave trade in the dis'rict of Columbia. 
 
 Will tiie secession of South-Carolina change the Constitution of California ? 
 
 No. 
 
 Will it place California out of the Union ? 
 
 No. 
 
 Will it give us back the tenitories which were so unjustly taken from us ? 
 
 No. 
 
 Will it repeal the anti-^lave trade law for the District of Columbia ?. 
 
 No. 
 
 What then does it resist ? 
 
 Well, I hardly know what ; but then it looks like resistance, and to go alone, is a 
 movement so bold and spirited ! 
 
 If tlie government attempts to coerce us, could we fight it out alone? 
 
 Oh no, we shall have help quick enough. 
 
 Well, if we go out looking for help, where is the boldness of going alone. This 
 seems to me like going alone, and not going alone. 
 
 Oh, but we commence the fight alone. 
 
 True, but if we tell our neighbors beforehand, that we look to them for help when 
 we get into a tight place, there does not seem to be much boldness in the matter. And 
 if we go in peace, where is the biJuness of the step, since it resists notliing? 
 
 But we shall at lea'-t be free then to do as we please. 
 
 Could we then, take our slaves to California, or New Alexico, or Utah? 
 
 No. 
 
 Could we take them to North-Carolina, or Georgia, or Alabama ? 
 
 No. 
 
 If a Georgian or North-Carolinian, marry in South-Carolina, could the father of the 
 bride give Lis daughter a negi'o, to take to one of those States ? 
 
 No. 
 
 How then do you say, that we could do as we pleased ? 
 
 Well, I don't know exactly, but still, by secession we show om" resentment, and 
 spite those freesoilers. 
 
 Would you biu'n down your own house to show your resentment, and spite your 
 enemy ? 
 
 I would not. 
 
 If you were half owner of a house, and the oiher half owner were to occupy more 
 than his share, would you show your resentment, by giving him up the whole and 
 building another for yourself? 
 
 No, I would not. 
 
 Then if, by secession, we give up all the territories and forts, and our interest in the 
 navy and the pubbc buildings, and go out alone to set up for ourselves, 
 how do we spite the freesoilers, or how can it be called resistance. This looks to me 
 like downright submission ; Mississippi is f r taking back the land, by settling it in 
 defiance of the law. But we call tiiat submission, and say, no, let us cut loose and 
 leave all, that is resistance. But call it as we please, the world will think that Mis- 
 sissippi was right, and we will think so too, when the chai-m breaks. 
 
 Well, may be so, I confess I cannot see how it is, but my leaders say, tibat it is 
 brave and heroic, and all that, and so I — ^go it blind. 
 
 «•■ /I /9lk 
 

 
 
 -^Ao^ -^ 
 
 
 -,-r. ■» ■ay d» • 
 
 ^j.^ 
 
 
 ,<" 
 
 ^ . t • o^ '^ 
 
 
 v<^^ 
 
 vn^- 
 
 
 
 "^o^ 
 
 O 4V 
 
 '^ " f , 1 • ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^. '■ ^v** «o 
 

 iV«>» 
 
 
 
 ^* <L^ ^^ •'>'^^\^* V '^ 
 
 
 'bV" 
 
 
 
 iOv\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^v.^^ 
 
 ^^^c,-^' 
 
 
 
 ;* <L^^ 
 
 
 V ^y 
 
 
 
 '^o^ 
 
 1 > - « • • » *>\ r>^ . » • 
 
 'oK 
 
 '^O^ 
 
 K^°-^ -' 
 
 
 
 ^Ao^ 
 
 ^'^ '"V*^^*\/ %''^'^'/ -^^*.---.^^ 
 
 .^^r 
 
 
 
 ''>-* S 
 
 

 iiiliiiiilliillM^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ii ill iiii^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^