im

i&Y'l* ¦¦¦¦'iiiii

!ii':i!jyi!'if::;(!Ti
iiiii!:!!;!;!!-;!;.;;:!;?^ I,- iliilaiiUUtllr •:'

"lAl'Mi--^':r\V'-'

J.tl If'

YALE ?VNIVERS ITY
* L I B R,A R,Y ?

?=

=0

A
True Vindication of
nixe SoutK

In
A Review of American
Political History

By

Tlxomas M
Sometime U. S. Senator from Georgia

Nc

anson iNorwooi

B=

^

copyright, 1917
BY The Citizens and Southern Bank, /
AS Executor of the 'Will of
Thomas M. Norwood

Braid a Hutton, Inc.
Printers. Stationers aAo Lithographers
SAVANNAH. GA.

CONTENTS

Introduction  i-xvi
Chapter Page
I. — Origin of the Puritans  T
n. — Of the Period Preceding the Exodus from England  7
III. — Puritan Fanaticism  9
IV. — Puritan Nomenclature  ;  13
V. — Puritan Nomenclature (Continued)  23
VI. — Slavery in Massachusetts  27
VII. — Slavery in Massachusetts (Continued)  36
VIII. — Slavery in Massachusetts (Continued)  45
IX. — Adams on the Puritans  J  52
X.— The Situation in 1860-'61  ^_ 62
XL— Daniel Webster  66
XII. — ^As to Webster's Oratory  75
XIII. — Webster as Statesman and Patriot  86
XIV.— Mr. Webster's Moral Attitude Considered  93
XV. — ^Remarks on Webster's Reply to Hayne  100
XVI.— Webster's Reply to Calhoun Considered  109
XVII. — ^Further Discussion of the Reply to Calhoun  119
XVIII.— Webster's Quibbling on Words  129
XIX.— The Facts Were Against Webster  137
XX.— Webster's "Parental" Fallacy  -_  145
XXI.: — ^Webster's Misinterpretation of the "Preamble"  155

Chapter Page
XXII. — An Amazing Ignorance and a Suggested Speech — 159
XXIII.— The Eight of Secession  ,  167
XXIV.— The Law and the Pacts of the Question  179
XXV.— The Question as Viewed in 1787  186
XXVI. — Secession a Concrete as well as an Abstract Right_196
XXVII.— The Right Way to Determine the Question  202
XXVIII. — Sovereignty and the Law of Nations  205
XXIX.— The Human Law of Highest Authority  214
XXX. — The Author's position Tested and Sustained by
Hypothetical Cases  225
XXXI.— What the Federal Government WaS and Is  236
XXXII.— The Difference Between "Delegated" and
"Granted"  242
XXXIII.— About the Word "Perpetual"— A Medley of
Law and Fact  244
XXXIV. — Some Comments on a Letter of Chief Justice
Marshall  250
XXXV. — Sovereignty and Allegiance  256
XXXVI. — Sovereignty and Allegiance (Continued)  266
XXXVII.— Citizenship  271
XXXVIII. — More as to Sovereignty — The Most Signifi
cant Amendment  274
XXXIX— Abraham Lincoln  281
XL. — Lincoln Viewed in Different Aspects  286
XLI. — ^About Lincoln's Public Record, and a Puritan
Abolitionist's View of Property and Title  291
XLII. — Lincoln and the Chicago Convention that Nom
inated Him in 1860 — Seward, Beecher, Parker,
and Other Abolitionists and Anarchists  300

Chapter Page
XLIII.-— Of the Lincoln-Douglas Debate — Quotations from
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address  :  306
XLIV. — ^Lincoln Becomes a Usurper and Inaugurates War__313
XLV. — ^Lincoln on ' ' Universal Law ' ' and the ' ' Perpetuity ' '
of the Union  323
XLVI. — ^Lincoln's Learning as a Lawyer Tested — His
Contradictory Positions '  :  332
XLVII. — The Latin Maxim, "Facit Per Alium Facit Per
Se," Applied to Lincoln  341
XLVin.— The Cunning and Treachery of Lincoln  350
XLIX. — ^Lincoln's Deception of the People North and South_360
L.— ^A Supposed Soliloquy  366
LI. — Testimony of Personal Intimates About Lincoln  370
LII. — ^Northern Faithlessness and Lawlessness  378
LIII. — ^Riot of Lawlessness and Corruption — ^Profit and
^ Loss of the War  382
LIV. — Thieving, Swindling, Bribery, Perjury and General
Corruption Rampant in the "Party of High
Moral Ideas"  390
LV.— The Social Loss  399
LVL— White Subjugation  406
LVII. — John Brown — A Brief Essay on a Small Subject  409
LVIII.--John Bro-wn (Continued)  417
LIX. — "The Great Conspiracy": A Rollicking Romance
by John A. Logan —  426
Appendix. — Lincoln's Letter to Mrs. Browning; A Back
woods Wedding Comedy Staged by Lincoln;
Some Separate Paragraphs on Lincoln, Thaddeus
Stevens, Beecher, Parker and John Brown; Dis
union Resolutions at Worcester, Mass. ; Rev. Dr.
Fuller on Lincoln; Lee and the Confederate
Soldiers .,  437-450
Errata  451

PREFATORY NOTE

Thomas Manson Norwood was born in Talbot county,
Georgia, April 26th, 1830, and died at his home near Savannah,
June 19th, 1913. Between those dates he had been for fifty
years a prominent member of the legal profession in his native
State, had served it as legislator in the council-chambers of
its own capitol and in both branches of the Congress of the
United States, and had presided for twelve years on the bench
of the City Court of Savannah. At the time of his election to
the State legislature he was a private soldier in the military
ser-vice of the Confederate States.
Judge Norwood's schoolboy years were passed at the CuUo-
den Academy, long a f amoTls educational institution of Middle
Georgia; and his collegiate education was received at Emory
College, Oxfordj Georgia, where he graduated in 1850. Twenty-
five years later he returned there as a senator of the United
States, and delivered the address from which is taken the
beautiful tribute to Lee that is printed in the appendix in this
book. A year or two before the alumni address he had made
a notable speech in the Senate on the "Civil Rights Bill" — a
measure devised by Republican party leaders inspired by ani
mosity towards the South, then prostrate and bleeding under
the rule of that sectional party, whose course had brought on
the War Between the States, with all its horrors and lamentable
consequences. His "Civil Rights" speech, as it was called, gave
Senator Norwood great prominence throughout the South,
especially, not only because of the force of its argument, but
because also of its felicitous satirizing of a measure so obnoxious
to the Southern people.
During the rule, following the War Between the States, of
the Republican party in the South, when the elective franchise
was taken from an educated white population of the highest
type of civilization, and given to an uneducated black popula
tion of the lowest type, controlled in their exercise of the
franchise by the white political adventurers from the North

(called carpetbaggers) and the few native Southern whites
(called scalawags) who were Republicans for revenue (of which
two classes, in addition to the negroes, the Republican party
in the South was composed) ; — during that dark period of
American history, when that combination of such unsavory and
infamous memory was — ^with the backing of the military power
of the United States Government — in political control of the
Southern States and holding its orgies in their capitols, one of
its members was installed by it in the office of Governor of
Georgia. His name was Bullock. He was a Northern man, and
had been in the employ of the Southern Express Company a*
Augusta before his political associates — ^the negroes, scalawags,
and carpetbaggers — elevated him to the Executive Chair of the
Empire State of the South.
This Republican "Governor" and his Administration af
forded an inviting field for Mr. Norwood's pen and his distinc
tive style of sarcasm and invective, and he availed himself of
it in a series of newspaper articles, over the signature of
"Nemesis," that attracted more than State-wide attention
and the authorship of which was for some time a subject of
much and mistaken conjecture. Not long after their publica
tion the ci-devant Express agent resigned the office of Governor
and fled the State, which then came again into the hands of its
own, and the writer of the "Nemesis" articles was sent to the
United States Senate.
Judge Norwood was a Democrat "after the most straitest
sect" of t^e Democratic political faith. He believed it to be
a cardinal principle of that creed that governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed. He knew that
that principle was proclaimed to be a self-evident truth by the
Declaration of Independence, written by the father of the Demo
cratic Party. He believed in the principles of State Sovereignty
and State Rights, as they were set forth in the Virginia and
Kentucky Resolutions of 1798- '99— of which James Madison
and Thomas Jefferson were the authors, and that were asserted
by others of the founders and foremost statesmen of the
Republic. He knew that those principles constituted the
corner-stone of the American Union — ^the political edifice
of whieh those patriots and statesmen were the architects,

and that all the facts of its history show that that Union
was not established by force — was not a government of force,
but was a voluntary union of independent States.
Eoiowing these great fundamental truths of American his
tory, he never questioned the right of a State to withdraw from
that Union when to the State its withdrawal seemed necessary
to secure its unalienable rights and its safety and happiness;
and when the Northern States began and waged a war of
coercion against the Southern States for having withdrawn
from the Union when it seemed to them that withdrawal was
necessary to obtain such security, he held that they — the
Northern States — ^by that war wrongfully assaulted and violated
those principles, and that the Southern States rightfully
defended them against that assault ; — that the South was right
in its loyalty to those principles and the North criminally wrong
in its disloyalty to them. And such, it can with entire truth
be said, is the conviction of the living descendants of the men
of the South who fought for those principles under the leader
ship of Robert E. Lee. They know that the result of that war
— of twenty-two States against eleven Statesi — showed where
the might was. They are equally sure that it did not show
where the right was. The great illusion of the age — the notion
that power could make right — has not found lodgment in the
souls of the sons and daughters of Confederate sires.
In his old age Judge Norwood bethought him to utilize the
leisure that came with retirement from public life by writing a
"book to establish" (as he says in the Introduction) "the justice
of the South 's action before, during and after the War of
Abolition between the Northern and Southern States in
1861- '65. ' ' With characteristic resolution he began work upon
the purposed book ; but neither the mi^d nor the body under the
weight of eighty years can work with the vigor and endurance
of an earlier time. Years steal strength from the one as from
the other, and Judge Norwood had to yield to the encroachments
and infirmities of age, and to answer the final summons, before
he had brought his manuscript to the state of completion he
contemplated, and arranged it for publication. What he had
written, though, was enough to "prove his case," and to make
the volume now published in accordance with his testamentary
direction, under the title designated for it by himself.

Time did not weaken Judge Norwood's sehse of the crime
of that war^on the Southern States. It did not weaken nor
soften his memory of the physical and mental suffering, the
cruelties, horrors and agonies, inflicted by a devastating war on
their people — and his people — only for their loyalty to primal
American ideals consecrated by the blood of their Revolutionary
fathers-r-only for claiming and contending for the right of
political self-government proclaimed by the Declaration and
won by the Revolution of '76, of which they sought not to
deprive the people that attacked them. He neither forgot nor
forgave that war's violation of the basic vital principle of
repiublican government and of the American Constitution, nor
the irreparable wrongs and calamities to his own State and
section that followed in its wake ; and while the fact that he
wrote under the unabated influence of a vivid recollection of
thos6 Calamities may properly be considered and given its due
weight in connection with his characterization of , individuals
whom he believed chiefly responsible for them, it does not
invalidate the indisputable historical facts in the book, which
— alone, in and of themselves — constitute a vindication of the
South.
T. K. 0.

INTRODUCTION

The chief purpose in writing this book is to establish the
justice of the South 's action before, during and after the War
of Abolition between the Northern and Southern States in
1861-65. I regret deeply that some one of our able Southern
men has not presented the law involved in the struggle be
tween the free and slave States as I shall endeavor to give it.
This regret does not arise from loss of wha.t might be the
effect on the minds of people lof the North. It is because the
young men of the South have, to some extent, been left to
draw conclusions from the mass of falsehoods slandering their
forefathers that have issued from the Northern press, in books,
magazines, weekly and daily papers, school-books and diction-.
aries for three-quarters of a century, but especially since the
year 1861.
I purpose to show that the South was in the right and was
justified in every issue between her and the North, from the
first division between them when a geographical line was
drawn and the associated States were designated by the
words — ^the North and the South.
I purpose to show that in 1865 the Northern and Southern
colonies were two distinct peoples, of different origin, although
from the same island ; that in temperament, education, opinions
on government — ^political and ecclesiastical, habits, training,
mental and moral, tastes and conduct, they were antipodal;
that these fundamental differences existed during the Revolu
tion of 1776, and when the Constitution -was agreed to; and
' that they have .continued to this day. ' If these statements be
true I do not suppose there can be cavil over the conclusion
that the union of two such peoples to establish a common
agency to conduct, in many respects, their individual busi
ness, was an egregious blunder. The open history of the States
under a written agreement made in 1787 is a demonstration of

that blunder. Two peoples who can not live together without
constant wrangling, abuse, fighting, aa|d wholesale murder
should never come together.
When religious fanatics claim that negroes they hold in
slavery are personal property, and sell them to others and
guarantee the title, and afterwards demand of the purchasers
to free those negroes, and — only because the demand is re-
fused-T-muster men and with arms kill the masters and free
the negroes, argument is not needed to prove on whose hands
is the blood lof Abel. I anticipate a denial of the fact that
negro slavery caused the war, and the assertion that Secession
caused it — by saying, I am not now attempting to give what
the Abolitionists and Nationalists assign as the cause. They
shut their eyes to all the wrongs done to the South during
sixty years before Secession, and fix them steadfastly on the
proximate cause, Secession, and assert that there would not
have been war if the Southern States had not seceded. This
is only surmise. Who can tell what would or would not have
occurred had Secession not occurred ? It is folly to reason with
one who assumes to prophesy what millions of fanatics obeying
no law, human or divine, and who were encouraged, upheld
and protected in deeds of lawlessness, theft, and even murder,
by a majority of Legislatures in fourteen Northern States who
enacted "Personal Liberty, Laws" — would or would not do at
any time. But this is not the place to enter fully into that
quiestion.. It will be taken up at the proper time.
The responsibility for the disruption of the Union and the
butchery of a half-million men, the anguish of millions of
mothers, wives and children, and the destruction of the Re
public, will be fastened on the guilty, and in this book I have
contributed my mite to aid in fixing that guilt. Others will
follow and take up the work. The question is one of Law, and
Law .alone can and will settle it. In all the writings by the
Nationalists and all others in the North, not one, so far as I
have read or heard, has ventured to discuss the legal views
of the War. They all followed the Daniel Webster 'of 1830,
and damn the Daniel Webster of 1850. The South reverses
that order, and condemns Webster's speeches in ,the debates
with Hayne and Calhoun, and holds that he became convinced
ii

of his ruinous opinions expressed in those two debates, and
endeavored to atone in 1850 for the impending destruction of
the Union caused by his speeches in 1830-3.
The stock "argument" at the North has been patterned
after the method of argumentation that is practiced by negroes
in the South. In a quarrel between two negroes, the one who
can bawl louder, talk faster and has the better ¦wind, and,
especially, who can roll out the foulest, filthiest and most
obscene words, strengthened at short intervals with .coarsest
oaths, is always adjudged by the promiscuous audience acting
as umpire, to be the conqueror. The parallel is perfect, except
ing the adornment by profanity. Since the war the air has
been burdened with declamation by slanderers, some so ignor
ant they do not know the difference between a horse-chestnut
and a chestnut horse — between a parallel and a parallax. Imi
tating furious negro debaters and logicians in a quarrel, they
have kept the air in rapid and violent agitation by exploding
in it such bombs as "Rebel! Rebellion! Treason! Traitor!
Conspirators! Conspiracy! The Great Conspiracy!" That
argument growing monotonous and not being sufficiently stimu
lating to the audience, these artists in vilification rise a few
keys higher to C flat and screech "Arch-Traitor!! Architects
of Ruin ! ! Damnable Heretics ! ! Villainous Rebels ! ! Archi
tects of Anarchy ! ! Base Anarchists ! ! "
One of these B'Ombast.es Furiosos, who for ten years has
haxi his hand on the door knob of a lunatic asylum, in order to
popularize his "Life of Thomas H. Benton," baptized Jeffer
son Davis an "Arch Traitor," and not a few of these patriots
for bounties, 6rst, and then, pensions, in annual camps, held to
demand bigger pensions, decorated by their censure Robert E.
Lee, calling him a "Traitor," and dreading to face him even
in marble standing in the "Hall of Fame" in Washington.
These mouthing logicians pay no attention to the wisdom
of the Bible. It tells us "Evil communications corrupt good
manners. ' ' Ever since the Puritan fanatics made the discovery
that the negro is their equal, .and made him their companion
and bed-fellow, and have received him into their families as
a son-in-law, they have absorbed from him not only his ability
as a logician, and his method of argumentation, but have
acquired, also, two of his native and irrepressible talents; one

Ul

is, he. is so economical with Truth he starves it down to
famine, and the other, his undying devotion to other people's
property. Some of the Rebels and Traitors, when they read these
compliments by Nationalists, are too much disposed to forget
another wise precept of the Bible — "Answer not a fool accord
ing to his folly, lest you, also, be like unto him;" for they, in
abbreviated sentences, say some impertinent things about "Bull
Run" — " Chancellorsville, three men to one" — "old women and
girls hanged as witches" — "Quakers whipped," "ears cut off,
and then hanged," — "white children sold as slaves just to get
money, — women, preachers, teachers, stealing negroes," —
"Treason and perjury in Personal Liberty Laws passed by
Puritans," "Higher Law than the Constitution," — "Constitu
tion a league with Death and covenant with Hell," — "Negroes
made slaves by statute in Massachusetts, and law never re
pealed," — "Statute of Massachusetts forbidding marriages of
negroes and whites repealed, and now it's a playground and
Paradise for yellow brats and gro-wn-up Bismarcks."
Inferiors should not answer their superiors, yes, their
supremes, in that manner. It is not respectful, even by' servants,
but when Rebels and Traitors and Conspirators so far forget
their subordinacy as to answer furious words that signify
nothing Dy blurting out history, l^he offense is lese majeste,
whieh amounts to treason. Besides, the truth hurts. The
great lawyer, James L. Petigru, of Charleston, South Carolina,
was once assailed by an irate man who called him a scoundrel.
He said — "I didn't mind that because I knew it was not true.
He then called me a liar, and I didn't notice him, as that was
not true. He then called me a Federalist, and I knocked him
down because that was the truth."
The responsibility for that horrible internecine war can
not be settled by epithets and abusive adjectives. They are
the weapons of raucous fishmongers ; the scourings of Billings
gate; the pointless arrows of vanquished Parthians; the final
refuge of impotent malice; a confession of chagrin, mortifica
tion and shame over failure to overcome a foe one-fourth in
number, without refusing exchange of prisoners, without the
aid of hired Hessians and negro warriors, and without brutally
sacrificing the lives of brave men in prisons — companions in
iv

arms— -who had been cunningly duped into service to free
negroes, by the cry — "Sa-v© the Union from destruction by
Rebels and traitors!!"
These word-mongers are so vengeful that, had they the
power, they would not let it "do a courtesy to their wrath."
They would, without the form of justice, with rope, hasten
pell-mell to "the sour apple tree." They are the hei-oes who
sleep as the battle rages, and then march in quick-step to the
distant echoes of the drum-beat, to share the spoils with carrion
crows and thieves. They revel in the toggery of mock heroics,
and, mayhap, are brave enough to daringly head a corps of
camp-followers on the perilous expedition to kick a dead lion.
But— I
"The little dogs and all.
Tray, Bianch, and Sweetheart — see ! they bark at me. ' '
The purpose of this book being as stated, the aim of the
writer is to find the truth of history. Knowledge of the history
of the war waged by the Northern or Pree States against the
Southern or Slave States, is not essential to arrive at the right
or wrong of the war. The truth that determines the justice,
or the right or -wrong of that struggle, is to be found in the
history of all the States in the Union, that preceded the be
ginning of that horrible and inhuman fratricide. When the
truth shall be found we shall find the responsibility for that
demoniac sacrifice by Mammon to Moloch on the hills and in
the valleys of sixteen States.
The right or wrong does not turn on facts alone. The key
to the right or the wrong is what is known among civilized
peoples as Law. That is the generic word. Its branches are
Ci-dl Law, Constitutional Law, and the Law of Nations. It
will be seen that all three must be invoked to sit in judg
ment on the question of guilt or innocence in this case of the
arraignment of Sovereign States. It will further appear that
of these three Justiciaries, the Law of Nations is the Chief —
the predominant — ^not only because it is the only law by
which disagreement between nations can be settled, but be
cause it is law of the highest authority that men have ever
devised. It is the law which has been laboriously compiled
line by line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a

little extending through thousands of years, by sovereigns
who had to agree to do justice in order to obtain security. In
theory, by that law, the weakest nation or republic is in every
respect the equal of the mightiest. The republic of San
Marino, or the kingdom of Montenegro, before the tribunal of
Nations, is as great as the empire of Russia. It is by this law
the guilt or the innocence of one or the other party to that
butchery must be determined.
The cry of Rebel — Traitor — Conspirator — during the war
served its purpose. As a slogan it was very effective, just
as many a criminal has escaped by raising the cry of "stop
thief." But that cry no longer avails, although it still
reverberates in hundreds of anaemic folios as they fall from
the printer's press and start out "like the tale of an idiot, full
of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Of these dumb de-
ciaimers — ^many now smothered in slumber by benevolent dust
— speaking through printer's ink, some notice has been taken
in the foUo-vdng pages. One — perhaps the Boanerges of this
roaring multitude — ^has been of much assistance to the writer,
not so much by what the man who fathered the book compiled
by another, vindictively said, as by his inability to understand
the effect of what he said. This pompous and laborious en
deavor to vilify the South and all Southerners is "THE
GREAT CONSPIRACY," by John A. Logan. If every utter
ance of the charge of "Rebel — Rebellion — Traitor — Treason —
Conspirator — Conspiracy" — each and all invariably with a
capital initial — ^were a separate indictment, and his stentorian
voice were proof of each charge, the South would be fairly
depopulated, and her best blood would lie in cold obstruction
by Henry Wirz and that poor old woman, Mrs. Surratt — the
victims of national fury and suborned and suppressed testi
mony. But the removal, by near fifty years, from that vociferation
to stimulate what, by misnomer, was called patriotism, has
made it inaudible to normal ears, and we care nothing for
epithets and vituperation. We are before the judgment seat
of impartial History. Reason, that fled to brutish beasts, is
again on her judgment seat, is deaf to clamor and abuse, and
calls for facts and law. The Allen clan that gathered in moun-
-vi

tain fastnesses and, descending armed to the plain, invaded the
Temple of Justice and attempted to decide legal questions by
powder and bullets, has learned that the "remple still remains,
that Justice still presides, and that outraged law upheld by
civilized men will vindicate itself by the hangman's rope. The
Abolitionists, Freesoilers and Puritan fanatics who haled the
Huns, the Bavarians, the Hessians, the Mafia and the Africans
from their lairs to this shore, baited by a fraction of an as
sassin's pay, to adjudicate a constitutional question, and to
settle the Law of Nations by cannon, bullets, bayonets, and
starvation in dungeons, after mobbing Justice and hurling
her from the Temple, are learning that, though the greater
number of cannon may overwhelm, they are not judges to
determine laws by which every nation must be governed or
perish. They are learning that the commands — "Thou shalt not
steal" — "Thou shalt not kiU" — did not expire with Moses on
the Mount.
They are learning that when "the parents eat sour grapes
the children's teeth are set on edge;'' that ¦w'hen fathers and
mothers, in presence of their children, steal what their fathers
sold and guaranteed to be property, the children are very apt
scholars and have not dishonored their parents by refusing
to follow their example.
They are learning that the world, although "a mighty maze
is not without a plan."
They are learning that the Ear that hears and heeds the
cry, from the ground, of the blood of one child, is not deaf
to the cry of the blood of a half million of His children, and
the cry of millions of broken-hearted -widows and beggared
orphans. They are learning that He who laid the foundations of His
footstool did not place Avarice as its cornerstone; did not
exalt Greed, Selfishness, Injustice, Inhumanity and Oppres
sion among its pillars ; did not take care of sparrows and for
sake His last and highest creation — a little lower than His
angels — to be butchered in Coliseums at the turn of brutal,
pagan thumbs, nor to be murdered on battlefields and tortured
to death in dungeons by Christian Mammonites.

vu

They are learning that "Righteousness" alone "exalteth a
nation" and that fidelity to man is the highest evidence of
fidelity to God. They are learning all these lessons, and shall
learn many others, but they are very dull, stupid, refractory,
obstinate pupils. Their insatiable appetites are too keen in
devouring the luscious viands of Belshazzar's feast to raise
their eyes, for even a hasty glance at the wall. The sound of
revelry and the roar of commerce rushing through the streets
drowns the rising hungry growl of St. Germain just below
their feet.
They have yet to learn the profound meaning of Him who
announced the simple truth — "The poor ye have always with
you." When building this footstool He laid no stone to be
used to "grind the faces of the poor." He hears the Oily Gam
mons, wily flatterers and cajolers of the poor to keep them at
the grind, and through the thick blanket of the night He
sees these hypocrites gather and combine to rob iby cunning
the trusting victims of their flattery.
This work deals first with the Puritan — ^the word being
used in its collective sense. He is traced from his first appear
ance on the stage of the world's theatre through the many
scenes of his kaleidoscopic career down to the present time. Hq
is exhibited in his multiform and contradictory views and
attitudes. He will be seen as saint and as sinner ; as a fugitive
from persecution, and the originator of worse persecution. He
will appear in the white robe of Personal Liberty for aU man
kind, and soon after as a pirate on the high seas capturing
negroes to deprive them of personal liberty. Denouncing the
Church of England as a persecutor of conscience, he rivalled
the Inquisition in persecution of conscience; and neither sex
nor age could mitigate his ferocity.
It will be seen that from his fir^t disturbance of the public
peace, centuries ago, two overmastering passions have marked
his bloody footsteps to this hour, to-wit : Religious Fanaticism
and Insatiable Avarice. From these two trunks have grown
many branches, or collaterals. But, as they intertwine and at
time bear fruit that may be assigned to either trunk, it is
difficult to classify them. Among them, prominent and distinct,
as products of his fanaticism, are Intolerance, Religious Perse-
vui

cution, Superstition, the hallucination of being God's Chosen
People, and, therefore, of being in His confidence and counsel.
From this branch, it will be seen, sprang the Puritan's
peculiar and deadly system of religion — a Theocracy like that
of the Israelites, and this offshoot ramified even to the length
of christening his children with Jewish names, and other names
of marvelous invention but indicative of the Puritan's holi
ness. Another branch gro-wing out of his hallucination of close
communion with God is his inordinate egotism that burdens
him with the duty to regulate and direct mankind and the
business of the Earth. Hence, his irrepressible itching, at times
becoming violent and murderous, to intermeddle with other
people's business. From this egotism springs another shoot.
It is his claim of right to do what he will not permit
others to do.
The Puritan's insatiable Avarice, "like the stems and roots
of the bamboo," is without limit and takes any and all direc
tions. He became a bloody, cruel pirate on the high seas for
two hundred years. When this wide field so full of revenuei
was denied him by law, he turned land pirate, feeding on the
white race, his appetite growing by what he fed on — and, as
will be seen, that is still his chief sustenance and daily occu
pation. It will be shown that when his slave-trade was for
bidden and that feeder of his Avarice was out off, his religious
fanaticism, assuming the delusive shape of philanthrophy, went
out to the negroes he ha,d enslaved, and his pliable and elastic
conscience prompted him to resort to theft as a justifiable
means of restoring to freedom the slaves he had sold. But, far
worse than theft, he resorted to lawlessness in every form;
he repudiated the most solemn contract made by his ancestors,
while enjoying its benefit^; he attempted to annul the Con
stitution by acts of the legislatures; he damned his forefathers
for making "a covenant with Death and an agreement with
Hell;" he defied all laws that barred his will and purpose;, he
finally made war on the men who had bought his slaves; he
murd*ed a million whites to free three million blacks, and
signalized iis venom, hate, malice and brutality by trying to
force the master to be servant under his slave.
is

Running through this current of blood will be seen an
illuminating and predominating streak of Avarice commingled
¦with his fanaticism. Philanthrophy, was the cry, but gain was
the goal.
The contrast between the Cavalier and Puritan is given.
For this exhibition, Massachusetts and Virginia are selected as
the typical colonies and States; the first settled exclusively by
Puritans, the second mainly by Cavaliers. ^
I do not purpose to write or to rewrite a history of the
Puritans. He is an enthusiastic novitiate, or has time to waste,
or is one of the thousands of lineal descendants, who would,
at this late day, attempt to throw a cheerful beam upon the
dismal a.nd worse than erratic wanderings of the Pilgrim
Fathers. To me the task is impossible. As I have said,
thousands have tried to justify, or to exculpate the conduct of
that special band of religious fanatics. Including histories, full
and partial, sermons, magazines, pamphlets, platform addresses,
speeches and lectures, I have estimated the defenders of that
abnormal people at a very low figure. Indeed, in the brazen
art of self -laudation they have no parallel in aU history. They
have exalted themselves by encomiums to, the Seventh Heaven,
¦and, with sincerity, have been damned to the Nether Pit. A
stranger, after wading through the tomes -written by the
descendants and other advocates and defenders of the Pilgrim
Fathers, is reminded of the Psalmist, who says — "Righteous
ness exalteth a nation, ' ' and he feels the inferiority experienced
by a dwarf suddenly translated to the land of Brobdingnags.
But, when he turns to the story as told by those not of the
Puritan blood, nor moved by its fanaticism and egotism, he
discovers himself looking down on the pigmy race of the
Lilliputs. The philosopher, statesman, or theologian who delves into
the unnumbered volumes written in advocacy or defense of the
Puritans, looks in vain for one broad, liberal principle that .could
be adopted as the corner-stone, oi; arch key, to any system of
philosophy that would be accepted by even the unthinking
multitude; or for any principle that an advanced, rational peo
ple would adopt as a part of their government; or for any
view, or tenet, of religion that would not be flouted by any
other people. Christian or pagan.

They have occupied a niche far more conspicuous than ap-
plausabk, in the history of England and America for three
hundred and fifty years, and when the inextinguishable light,
gloomy and darkly visible as it is, of those frantic and bloody
centuries, is turned on the pages of those volumes in their
defence, the philosopher, statesman and theologian are re
minded of at least two notable records of filial devotion, one
biblical, the other, modern. The first is the filial duty per
formed by two of Noah's sons when they walked backward to
hide the nakedness of their Pilgrim Father who had fallen
imder the burden of a bacchanal debauch, and the other is the
instinctive and devotional precaution moving each defender,
without concert of action, before he begins his apology, to
step to the closet, where hang the thousands of skeletons, and
to lock the door hard and fast. Like the mediums who claim
communion with the spirit world, they, too, turn down the
light before the performance begins. One practices fraud on
the spectator by commission, while the other attempts to de
ceive the reader by fraud — dishonest by omission. One, in
cataleptic rigor, from the weird gloom, throws on the scene a
spectral hand or an imaginary form or face. The apologist
calls from the dead centuries a ghostly host, invests them with
the sacred robe of Samuel, and delivers an eulogium, that, if
true, would raise them to a level with Christian — ^Bunyan's
hero. One is of an imaginary man clothed by the genius of
Bunyan with Christian virtues; the other is of real men in
vested by deception and fraud with imaginary virtues.
It has been said by credible 'authority that there are more
readers of the Bible than any other book; that next in popu
larity in Christendom is "The Pilgrim's Progress." It is my
opinion that more books, pamphlets and stories have been writ
ten, and more sermons and post-prandial speeches delivered on
the Puritans than any other subject. One writer is credited
with 382 books and pamphlets on this prolific provocative of
the cacoethes scribendi. It is safe to say that np man or
woman was ever so self-«aerificing as to read one-tenth of these
productions. I have read not a few, and I have not found one
of these histories that is fair, full and impartial. The large
majority are by the Puritan Fathers and their descendants
of the full or diluted blood, or by religious or political parti-

XI

cans. It is safe to say there was never such a loud cry and
so little wool. This may be asserted — aiid the assertion made
good by "profert in open court" — ^that these histories bear
indisputable proof of carefully studied art to conceal the mul-
tidudinous evil and to exaggerate the minimum of good the
Puritans, did during the first hundred years of their free-hand
in New England.
Some of these -writers, called by courtesy historians, begin
their stories at the landing on Plymouth Rock in 1620, some
start when this religious sect was hidden away in Holland;
some, when they were holding conventions at^ Scrooby, but
not one that I have read follows them from their earliest known
appearance, about the middle of the sixteenth century, through
their devious paths in England and Holland, and along their
bloody tracks in Massachusetts. Not one has dared to lay
biafe their innate ferocity, their flinty asceticism, their cruel
and deadly fanaticism, their boastful and absurd chauvinism,
when patriotism was synonymous with the Puritan's creed in
Church and State ; the weighing the value of their coimtry in
the same scales in which they weighed the price of their slaves
stolen in Africa and sold in Barbadoes,^ West Indies and the
South; their hypocritical cry for freedom of conscience; the
anomaly that they fled from England to enjoy personal liberty,
and straight-way despatched hundreds of low-deck vessels to
Africa to buy or steal negroes for no other purpose than to
deprive these barbarians of their freedom; their persistent
claim of their right to secede from the Union and denial that
any other State had that right; their open rebellion for three
centuries against all law§, civil and ecclesiastical, except thdse
of their own making, or that conformed to their opinions and
selfish purposes. There are some explorers in the field of
occult literature who believe they have discovered in Milton's
Lucifer a tribute to the Puritan character. On this occult ques
tion I would not venture an opinion. But I do hot believe that
Milton belittled the figure of Lucifer by taking the Puritan
as his prototype. But, belief and conjecture aside, if the his
tory of those Puritans who fled to Massachusetts, as written
by themselves and their partissms, be ' true, Milton, in the
rehellious attitude of Lucifer has typified the Puritan who
"would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."
xii

To the unbiased mind it seems that when these historians
decided to write, and before they began, they went to the
door of the closet where hung the skeletons of the innocent
victims of the Puritans ' ferocious fanaticism, and of the many
black thousands of their insatiate greed, and locked it hard
and fast, and by some necromancy, or self-imposed hypnotism,
or through subliminal control, they forgot all that was wicked,
and cruelly and brutally criminal, and remembered only the
few palliative -virtues that here and there were visible. Keep
ing their sight steadfastly on the oasis far ahead, they over
looked the dismal, dreary desert "where not a flower ap
peared." The drama to be presented was known by all the
audience. It had been rehearsed before the public thousands
of times by unpaid thespians, and the leading actors were Dr.
Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyl always appeared gentle, though
uncouth; meek as Moses, wise as Solomon, strong as Ajax,
brave as Agamemnon, humble as Francis of Assisi, continent as
Joseph, more in the confidence of God's purposes and pro-vi-
dences than the Prophets of old; a saint and martyr perse
cuted by his King, the Pope, the Established Church, Luther
ans, and Baptists, Calvinites and heretics ; while the real actor
and hero in this bloody tragedy, Mr. -Hyde — ^who, to silence
his accusiag conscience and to serve his God, hung men,
women and children for opinion's sake, and, as head buccaneer
of the Atlantic, battened between low-decks a hundred
thousand negro slaves who starved and floated to death in
their o-wn fllth and were fed to pursuing sharks from the shores
of Africa, to Newport, Marblehead, Salem and Boston — re
mains tied behind the scenes until the curtain falls. Such, as
I read the histories of the Puritan Fathers, has been the per
sistent plan of their historians of the whole and diluted Puri
tan Blood and of thein prejudiced partisans. So the record
has run, so the innocent and ignorant have been taught for
three hundred years and up to the year 1903, when a halt was
cialled, when the word "check" was sounded in this game of
cheat, — ^by one of the Puritan whole blood ; one, as he tells us,
of direct lineal descent from two Puritan preachers — Cotton
Mather and Thomas Shepard.
The debate between Daniel Webster and Robert Y. Hayne
in 1830, and between Webster and John C. Calhoun in 1833

Xlll

are reviewed. And, as Webster was by far tbe best product
of Puritan civilization, he is reviewed as man, citizen, patriot,
orator and statesman. And as Webster then and there planted
the mine and laid the fuse that exploded in 1860 'and rent the
Union, it is shown how and why he did it. This leads to dis
cussion of States Rights, of the Federal Government, their re
lations, their respective powers and the measures of Federal
powers. And this brings under discussion the question pf
Secession — first, as a right per se, and, second, as a right
coupled with a duty at the time and under the surroundings
of the Slave States when they seceded.
Following these subjects the corollary as to the right of
States in the Union to make war on other States is considered.
The question is discussed in this form, because, as the reader
will observe, the writer holds that the action of the Federal
Government in making war on the Confederate States was the
action of the Northern States — as they supplied the army, the
navy, and the money, the federal government being nothing
more than machinery used by the States. Connected with the
question of Secession are the subjects of Sovereignty and Al
legiance. Under this head is noticed the views of Chief Jus
tice Jay, Chief Justice Marshall, Judge Story, Judge Oooley,
and other Federalists.
As Abraham Lincoln was President and on his own motion
began the war, his first Inaugural is analyzed, and a view of
him is given from his birth to his death. He is looked at as
a boy, as a young man, as a lover, a politician, congressman,
orator, abolitionist, lawyer, statesman, patriot, negrophilist,
warrior, a generator and purveyor of unprintable stories, a
hero and Savior of the Constitution and Union. The kind of
Union he saved is presented in a separate chapter. Some may
think that too much space has been given to Abraham Lincoln.
But they probably have not thought of the hundreds of volumes
that his worshipers have devoted to this wonderful hero. His
only rival among NoHhem adorers is John Brown. Brown
¦was apotheosized the day he was hung for murder. He was
compared to Christ, because he had sanctified the gallows as
much as Christ had made the Cross adorable. And now Lin
coln is eulogized as the greatest man on Earth since the death
of Christ. The writer, therefore, does not agree that too much

XIV

has been written in this work of a human being .of such trans
cendent greatness, especially when he remembers that the public
has been deprived of the pleasure or spared the nausea from
reading a large part of the best, because the truest, biography ,
of this Colossus written, by the man who knew him most inti
mately as his law partner for eighteen years before his death.
This Qandid biographer of the true Lincoln that took the public
behind the scenes, before the low comedian was spangled and
tricked out in the toggery of the stage as the world's greatest
tragedian, was speedily suppressed, and an expurgated edition
now delights the devotees ignorant of the imposition and cheat.
As the mind of the reader, like a true juryman, stands im
partial between the North's two greatest heroes, a chapter is
also given to John Brown. It is a singular coincidence that
the friends of both heroes believed they were insane; one
permanently, the other, -with lucid intervals. Lincoln's friends
feared he would .commit suicide, and he so strongly believed
he would that he dared not carry a pocket knife. Says Mr.
Herndon: "During these spells of insanity, or melancholia,
knives and razors and every instrument tbat could be used for
self-destruction were removed from his reach." One attack
in 1835, in his 26th year, was so alarming that James Speed ,
took him to Kentucky and kept him there six months. This
Speed was afterwards appointed Attorney General of the
United States by Lincoln.
The closing chapters contain some reflections on conditions
in the republic before the Northern States became lawless, and,
thereby, forced the South to seek peace and domestic tranquil
ity by Secession, and then followed her with bayonets, bullets,
cannon, cavalry, and the torch, to drive her back into a
Union; and on the conditions and results of that war from its
close to the present time. It will be seen that the witnesses
that have been called in to testify have been summoned from
the North, with a few exceptions. The latter are named and
located so the reader can judge of their reliability and fair
ness. Books and records quoted can not be doubted, as they
are accessible and belong to history. The conclusion drawn
that the responsibility for the war and for all the deaths,
wounds, diseases, anguish, suffering, brutality and devasta
tion rests on the soul of Abraham Lincoln and the people who

XV

followed him, will, no doubt, be received in the North with
some misgiving. The assertion that whatever perjury, rebel
lion and treason preceded and caused secession were committed
in the North, and were repeated and emphasized if possible
by making war on the South, may not be admitted. In prose
cutions for crime the sequel sometimes has been that the
defendant has been acquitted and the loud-mouthed prosecu
tor has been tried and convicted of the crime.

CHAPTER I.
ORIGIN OF THE PURITANS.
The origin of tbat angular section of the human race known
the wotld over by the name Puritan, raises a question of wide
geographical extension. That they are of the white race no
one has suggested a doubt, but of what nationality there is
a difference of opinion. One of the elect — "one of the tribe
of Judah" — one bom and educated in New England — one
highest in authority in tbat cultured corner-^says the Puri
tans are Armenians, or came from Armenia. This authority is
John Fiske, one of the greatest scholars, essayists, philosophers
and historians of New England. He was a voluminous writer,
and — it may be added — aluminous on subjects he understood,
being the author of fourteen books and of much miscellaneous
matter. In his history entitled "Beginning of New England,"
he assigns as his reason for tracing the Puritans back to
Armenia, that the Greek word — Cathari — means Puritans.
In the Bulgarian tongue they are known as BogomiliaAs, or
men constant in prayer. They accepted the New Testament,
denied any mystical efficiency to baptism, fro-wned upon image-
worship as no better than idolatry, despised intercession of
saints, and condemned the -w'orship of the Virgin Mary. Their
ecclesiastical government was in the main Presbyterian, and
in politics they showed a decided leaning toward democracy.
They wore long faces, looked askance at frivolous amusements,
and were terribly in earnest. They moved westward through
the Balkan peninsula into Italy, and thence into southern
France, where toward the end of the twelfth century we find
their ideas coming into full blossom in the great Albigensian
heresy. From France they passed over to England — at what
time Fiske does not state.
While this is to a very slight degree probative, from the
fact that in all time no other people was palled Puritans, and
no other languages but the Greek and English have that word,
still, it is far from being satisfactory. There is however, cor-

2 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
 ^ 
roborative evidence in several facts, one of which is mentioned
by Fiske, to-wit: That tbe Puritans migrated from Armenia
many centuries before they appeared in England, and during
their several migrations, they were in war on account of
religion. This is a good biography of Puritans so far as it
goes. The other fact, not given by Fiske is, that the Armenians
for more than 3,000 years were in constant turmoil, warfare
and subjection. From 2,000 years before Christ to 1200 A. D., the
Armenians passed under nine dynasties and were finally ab
sorbed by partition into Russia, ^Persia and Turkey. When
the "Puritans" (Catharists) emigrated they passed through
Turkey, skirted along the northern border of Italy, drifted
into Northeastern France, and there fell in with the Albigenses,
and mixed up with them in their struggle for life against the
armies of Pope Innocent III. The remnant that escaped the
sword of that pious Innocent wandered on until they reached
England, where trouble soon began.
If the theory of Fiske be correct, we can understand the
turbulence and insurrectionary conddct of the, Puritans in
England, and the ferocity of their religion when they reached
America. Environment shapes not only the physical develop
ment, of fauna and flora, but it controls the physical, mental,
and moral qualities of mankind. A people who had been a
football for Europe and Asia for three thousand years, and
had to endure the different whims, commands and cruelties of
Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Russians and Turks, fol
lowed by the brutal persecutions of Pope Innocent III, had the
iron driven into their souls so deep that revenge, cruelty and
brutality became their ruling passions, and descended to their
children almost as inevitably as the color of their skin. They
became a tribe of Ishmaelites-— their hands were against the
human race.
No wonder is it they rebelled against aU restraint, physical
and spiritual, and kept the established church of England
seething and boiling like the troubled sea. No wonder is it
they avoided the haunts of men and betook themselves, at
first, to the barrenness and heather of Nottinghamshire de
scribed by the English scholar, Edward Arber, in "The Story
of the Pilgrim Fathers," as without roads, with a few strag-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 3

gling villages, among them Scrooby, a Post Office ; and Gains
borough — ^the former saved from oblivion by the presence of
Cardinal Wolsey when he retreated before the -wrath of his
King, Henry VIII, and the latter remembered as the spot to
which George Eliot gave the name, St. Oggs, in "The Mill on
the Floss" — the pseudonym for the river Trent by which still
stands the mill she immortalized as Dorlcote Mill.
No wonder is it that when landed in America, -with none to
molest them or make them afraid, free as the roving Indians,
and ferocious as .the beasts of the forests, their avarice —
tenderly veiled by Francis Parkma,n, one of their o-wn family,
under the soft and gentle phrase, "excess in the pursuit of
gain" — reaicbed its slimy, cruel tenacles across the Atlantic,
and drew into its empty and insatiable maw slaves from Africa
and digested them into gold.
No wonder is it that Indian warriors captured, not as
"Rebels" and "Traitors," but in open warfare, were, by
thousands sent to market as slaves in the Barbadoes and West
Indies, and converted into cash, among them the Queen of
Philip, King of the Pequods, and their son, a lad.
No wonder is it that an Inquisition was set .on foot claimed
¦to be by Divine approval (says Parkman), and called the Re
ligion of Christ, and under its charity and love men and
women were dragged at the cart-tail, "whipped through three
towns," their ears cut off, and then hanged till dead — all in
the name of and to honor the Lord.
No wonder is it that white children — one a tender girl of
14 years — brother and sister, for the offense of poverty that
prevented payment of a fine of twenty pounds for not attend
ing "religious service"' conducted by the Inquisition, were
sentenced by the High Court of Boston to be sold as slaves, to
end their joyous lives, day and night, working with negro
slaves in the Barbadoes — and this, to put money in the Puri
tans' purse.
No wonder is it that the descendants of Armenian servants
unden foreign rulers for over 3,000 years had lost, if they ever
possessed, the sense of honor that is the chief and strongest
bond, the surest anchor of safety to the weak, between civilized
nations, and that their fanaticism and avarice over-rode the

4 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
only bond between the sovereign States in the Union — denied
its authority to bind the Puritans, as they were bound only by
a "Higher Law," while insisting with bullet, bayonet and
cannon that the Southern States had to obey the bond.
No wonder is it that after preaching Secession and threat
ening to secede for forty years, these descendants of Armeni
ans, controlled by avarice, denied in 1860 that any other State
had the right to secede.
And it was as natural as for the sow to return to the wal
low, that, impelled by avarice, the Puritans waged fierce and
relentless war, with such barbarous practices as leaving their
own soldiers — dupes of a false .appeal to enlist — ^to perish in
prisons and "dungeons" after" their foes had offered to ex
change them.
After that barbarity, and death sentence passed on their
own companions in arms, what simpleton would express sur
prise that men and women of the best blood of England, with
bayonets at their breast, were manacled and fettered and
delivered up to the rule and ignorance and lusts of their owti
slaves, by these descendants of menials of three thousand years
servitude in savage Asia. ' ,
This origin of the Puritans is boldly stated by one of their
kind and kin. He bore to his grave the imprimatur of New
England— which is tantamount to the Northern People — as
well as the diploma and seal of Harvard University. His cre
dentials are of high authority and — I was about to sa.y — beyond
denial or question at the North, but in the blazing light of
history it is beyond the ken of any mortal to tell what Puri
tans will not assert — will not deny or repudiate. They as
serted and then denied the divinity of Christ. They asserted
for forty years the right of New England to secede, and denied
in 1833 the right of any other State, or States to secede. They
denied that the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution was
binding on them.
This sketch of Armenia's history given above is in the book
of Fiske. On the assumption that his statement of the origin
of the Puritans is correct, I give the sketch to account for the
monstrous mental and spiritual teratology of that people.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 5
There is another theory of their origin which is easier to
believe as it is less involved. It is that the Puritan stock had
been growing on the ground of England centuries before their
outbreak at Scrooby. All writers — even Fiske among them —
say they first appeared in Nottinghamshire — Scrooby being a
rendezvous. Ethnically there seems to be no dispute except
that made by Fiske, but in qualities of mind, in spiritual adapta
tion to existing social and political order and organism of the
age, they are what botanists and zoologists have labelled as a
"sport." They sprung from the common stock, but, by a
hidden, undiscoverable process acting on the germ ia cunning
Nature's laboratory, the offspring dishonors the parent and a
lusus naturae appears, and propagates its kind. From under
the roof that has sheltered a dozen offsprings of sane and
sound parents sometimes issue eleven model types of manhood
and womanhood, and the twelfth goes forth an incorrigible
monster in crime. Even from the highest type of civilized and
Christian men and women there comes to life an albino. The
latter is an affliction very rare — ^the former is not infrequent.
Either theory — ^that of Fiske or that of a "sport" — accounts
for the abnormality of the Puritan.
A third and the last hypothesis explains the mental obliquity,
but not the moral turpitude. As the mental precedes the moral
condition, it will be seen that, whereas, in single instances, it is
sufficient explanation, yet, when applied to millions running
through a period of four or five centuries, it is not satisfactory,
because it does not solve the factor of persistent heredity. This
theory requires, as does the first, a reference to history that
runs not further back than the Reformation.
The Reformation by Martin Luther began near the middle of
the fifteenth century. But it was not the dawn of that spiritual
illumination. As in the beginning John the Baptist was the
forerunner of Christ, so Wycliffe prepared the way for Luther.
Both preceded Gutenberg, but Wycliffe 's translation of the
Bible was copied often by hand and -widely distributed and
read. The masses before that translation knew little of that
repository of the Written Word for which their famished souls
thirsted, and that little, for a" thousand years, had been strained
through the stingy lips of priests. Wycliffe supplemented his

6 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
translation with treatises, painphlets and tracts to such a num
ber, as one writer says, they "baffled calculation." They
stealthily crossed the British Channel, and were welcomed with
Soy in huts and palaces, and two hundred, by papal order, were
burnt in Bohemia alone. Thus the da-wn of the Reformation
was in England. The common people who had hungered cen
turies for the word read this forerunner with avidity, and grew
restive under the teachings of the clergy. A century or less
later Martin Luther rose up and shook off his fetters. He threw
fuel on the fire kindled by Wycliffe.

CHAPTER n.
OF THE PERIOD PRECEDING THE
EXODUS FROM ENGLAND.
Nearly all books and other laudatory writings on the Puri
tans that have filled libraries were composed by themselves
and their descendants. That impartiality should mark the
tone of these family records, or that truth should be the base
line to which all should conform, is not to be expected. Much
of the inspiration that aroused the zeal of the authors came
from exaggerations composed of tria.dition and misstatements
called history. I speak now of what preceded the exodus from
England. There is nothing that excites so vehemently the sympathies
of civilized men as the narrative of physical agony, mental
anguish and spiritual suffering that a person or a people under
goes on account of religious faith. There is witchery in the
dim past, just as there is in the natural world, that magnifies
objects seen through haze. The sun appear^ more than twice
as large at the horizon than at its zenith. Time has magnified
women of ordinary statute into Amazons; has increased the
glory of Galahad ; multiplied the army of Xerxes ; made mar
velous, not to say enviable, the gastronomic capacity of the
Romans, and, even later, of our English ancestry, and the
physical strength of the Greeks. We reach widely different
conclusions after reading stories told by Ariosoto and Mun
chausen; and history recited by Robertson, Green, Bancroft, or
Ridpath. And it is this perversion of the light of hsitory that
has cast a seered halo around the heads of the Puritan Fathers.
An epitome of the history of this people in England can
be stated in very few words. This arose from the spiritual
unrest, the civic turmoil, the mental unbalance that followed
the defiance of the Vatican by Martin Luther. The religious
worid was upheaved. Then came the "confusion worse con
founded" when the Bible was printed and every man aiid

8 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
woman who could read became its interpreter. ' From that
time to the emigration to America, 'the Puritans were a law
unto themselves. They hooted the Catholics, they jeered the
Lutherans, they hated the Calvinists, they defied the Estab
lished Church and the Acts of Parliament, and especially the
Act passed in the 35th year of the reign of Elizabeth, A. D.
1593. They set up a church of their own and worshipped, in
contempt of the statutes, when, how and where they pleased.
The consequence was what they called persecution. That they
were right they no doubt, believed, because they were religious
fanatics. That they were in the wrong no one' can doubt
who is not a religious fanatic, and who knows their history
after they got unbridled control of their ecclesiastical and civil
government in America.
When the Puritan is stripped of his tinsel cro-wn of martyr
dom in England, of his forged passport to the heart of Chris
tian sympathy, of his bicentenary badge worn on his breast —
as the beggar wears his cry "Help the Blind" — ^^smeared with
his own blood by his own hands, he stands like Mokanna un^
veiled, the most repulsive, cruel, bloodthirsty, selfish and ag
gressive as well as ludicrous figure tbat ever sprang from a
Christian people, bearing the Cross as the symbol of their
Faith. In fact, his martyrdom is similar in kind but not in
degree to that which John Brown suffered at Harper's Ferry.
I beg to say that I do not include all Puritans in the above
characterization, nor shall I include all in what shall follow.
I am speaking of those who settled in Massachusetts and spread'
out over New England. There were a few good and great men
of that Faith who did not leave England — such as Milton,
Bunyan and Baxter. They were enthusiasts but they kept
-within the bounds of enthusiasm. The colony that swarmed out
from Scrooby when stirred by the royal tipstaves, gave free
rein to their enthusiasm that ran wild and swept them over the
border far into the quagmire of fanaticism where they have
cast up mire and mud for three hundred years, and the end
is not yet. *

CHAPTER in.
PURITAN FANATICISM.
Since the dawn of authentic history four disastrous waves
of fanaticism on religion have swept over -the world with most
destructive results to the human race. The first was when
Mohammed issued from his cave with the divine message com
mitted to his keeping by Allah, and, slowly mustering his hosts,
started out with the Koran in one hand and the sword in the
other to offer to men of all creeds the sacred privilege to take
the Koran, or the sword. Rising in the first half ol the seventh
century, it swept rapidly over Persia, Greece, Egypt, Spain and
India. It then turned westward into central Europe, bearing
do-wn all opposition, until it broke on the pjain of Tours, and
its refluent current settled over the classic ground of Greece
and over Asia Minor, where it has lain a thousand years, another
but far more repellent Dead Sea, coveted by all nations, but
protected by the danger of approach.
The second wave of this singular type of fanaticism was
heaved into destructive action by the potent voice of a rabid
monk — ^Peter, the Hermit, in the eleventh century. This time
the Christian world was the aggressor. Under Pope Urban II.
Europe was largely depopulated by the craze to rescue from
polluting hands the sacred sepulchre at Jerusalem. Four times
this tidal wave rolled Eastward, the first — a conglomerate mass
of men in armor, men in sackcloth, and women and children —
some babes in the arms. But, finally, the Moslem fanatics van
quished the Christian fanatics, and by the capture of Constanti
nople established the Crescent steadfast on European soil. After
the forests of Europe and the arid sands of Arabia were so-wn
¦with human bones, and excepting some knowledge of a few of
the Arabs' arts, nothing remains but the bloody pages of history,
and the addition of. the word "Crusade" to the English
vocabulary. The third wave was when Chirstians rose against Christians
at the instigation of bloody Innocent HI, when the sword, the

10 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
dungeon, the rack, the fagot and torch, the hot spikes of the
iron bed — ^the auto da fe — ^forerunners of the guillotine — ^were
the missionaries of the Inquisition to convert heretics and to
spread the Gospel of the Prince of Peace.
Of the fourth and the last it may be said — "Time's 'vilest'
offspring is the last ! " It was and is the religious fanaticism of
the Puritans. Their historian, John Fiske, gives them an honor
able pedigree — that is, if honor shall be due on acount of age
only. But it is not necessary to hark back to the eighth century
to find them in Armenia, and to trace their tortuous and rebel
lious course through eight centuries, during which they kept
the atmosphere of Europe as hot as it was destructive. The only
value attaching to Fiske 's ancient pedigree, if true, is the
demonstration of the imperishable quality of the Puritans'
fanaticism. It runs parallel in length of time with that of the
Mohammedans, or the Turks. The distinctive features of the
two religions is in the direction of their lust. That of the
Turks runs to women — while the Puritans' runs to gold.
Eeligious fanaticism and avarice distinguish the latter.
The last religious fanaticism began to foment in England
in the fifteenth century. In the sixteenth century it appeared
at first like a cloud over the barren heather of Northampton
shire. It gathered volume and spread to Holland. Thence it
rolled across the Atlantic, where, unrestrained by law, it became
a law unto itself of such anomalous and hydra-headed shapes
as we shall have a glimpse of in the following pages. Yes, the
Puritans' fanaticism was the vilest of all. The following pages
will demonstrate this charge to the satisfaction of every man
not a Puritan or already prejudiced in their defense. That the
reader may have a foretaste of the facts on which this charge
is founded, a very brief outline is here submitted.
The Puritans left England because they could not get justice
there ; because they were denied freedom of conscience, freedom
of speech and personal liberty; because they were persecuted;
because they were denied the privilege to publish books relating
to their Faith. As soon as established in the colony they began
to persecute all who would not subscribe to their Faith; to
suppress freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of
conscience, freedom of the press. They banished all non-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE^SOUTH 11
conformists on sentence of death by hanging should they return,
and accordingly they hanged those who ventured to return — ¦
men and women. They had but one court to hear, try and give
judgment in cases civil, ecclesiastical and criminal. From its
judgment, or sentence, there was no appeal — ^no escape. They
punished with pillories, bilboas and stocks, by whipping men
and women on their bare backs while dragged at the cart-tail,
through many towns, and by cropping off ears, and by hanging.
These barbarities were inflicted for minor misdemeanors, after
the victims failed to pay flnes imposed. Indians captured in
war were sold into slavery with negroes ; white children, unable
to pay fines, were sentenced to be sold into slavery for life in
the West Indies. Their o-wn records will be given in proof of
these deeds and of many others. They came to this continent
to enjoy personal liberty. Within sixteen years after landing
they became the most active pirates engaged in seizing of
negroes in Africa to deprive them of personal liberty by making
them and their posterity slaves for life. This "industry" was
conducted with zeal and enthusiasm for two hundred years.
Here was the Puritans' avarice in full operation. Religious
fanaticism and avarice — twin monsters — like Sin and Death
guarding the gate to Hell, that none might escape.
But religious fanaticism is not only imperishable ; it is invul
nerable. Its subject may be hanged, drawn and quartered, but
its spirit -will take refuge and find a lodgment in another body.
It is, in a sense, a verification of the Greek metempsychosis.
With the Mohammedan it has survived the death of thirteen
centuries. Like the White Plague, it is transmitted frohi sire
to son. Like another secret human malady, it contaminates
whomever it touches and destroys whom it contaminates. These
facts and reflections bear directly on the agitation by the Aboli
tionists. Isaac Taylor, one of England's foremost scholars,
about the close of the eighteenth century, in his able work on
Fanaticism, says :
"Such transitions of strong, and turbid emotions from one
channel to another are not unusual. If the torrent of feeling
be choked on one side, it swells and bursts a passage in another ;
and strange as it may seem, it is a fact that the gentle and genial
affections have a specific tendency, when cut off fr-^m their

12 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
natural flow, to take the turn of rancour and ferocity. The spirit
baffled in its flrst desires and defeated, but not subdued, sud
denly meets a new excitement, although altogether of a different
order — combined with the novel element and rushes on it knows
not whither. ' '
The fanaticism of the Puritans on religion was scotched by
the clause in the Constitution forbidding interference -with one's
religion. A dam was thus throvsm across the current, but the
current was not removed nor destroyed. As morality is an
essential to religion and as conscience is essential to both, the
Puritans made negro slavery a question of conscience. While
the slave trade was permitted by the Constitution, their con
science could not detect its immorality. The reason is that the
second domineering passion of the Puritans — ^Avarice — ^was
being glutted, and the surfeit satisfied conscience, which, like
the boa constrictor after a gorge, quietly slumbers until aroused
by hunger. And as the surfeit by the slave trade continued for
two hundred years, the slumbering conscience did not wake
until the gorge of Avarice was cut off by denial of its pabulum.
Negro slaves in the North had been found unprofitable long
before the right to import negroes was denied by the limitation
in 1808. Even that experience could not awaken the Puritan's
conscience. But, when Avarice could no longer rake in the
ducats, its twin passion — ^Religious Fanaticism — awoke and dis
covered that negro slavery was an abomination in the sight of
God, and as the Puritans were His special vice-gerents, they felt
constrained by conscience to sweep it from the face of the earth.

CHAPTER IV.
PURITAN NOMENCLATURE.
The nettle "Danger" drove New England and the Southern
States together in 1776. From it they "plucked the fiower.
Safety," but the nettle flourished and grew like the green bay
tree for more than a century. It ceased to be exotic and became
permanently domesticated. The union was a misalliance and
from the beginning the nuptials were celebrated by incessant
bitter bickerings, criminations, recriminations, domestic quar
rels and family combats that blazed at last into open war. The
parties to the imion were of different social rank, held widely
variant views of morality, justice, humanity and personal
liberty, and, judging from practical results, they worshiped diff
erent Gods. For the religion of one was gentle, persuasive,
charitable and tolerant ; while the religion of the other was in
tolerant, cruel, ferocious and bloody. According to the infallible
interpreters of the Puritans' God, He never relented or repented
as did the God of the Jews. If in the two cities of the plain there
had been, not twenty, or ten, or five righteous men, but ten
thousand, and but one unrighteous, their God would have con
sumed the cities with a rain of fire. This is but a meagre outline
of the irreconcilable differences between the two parties to the
"indissoluble union" (as Mr. Webster vie-wed it in 1830), formed
in 1787. The facts on which this outline is predicated will
appear at the proper times and under appropriate heads as I pro
ceed with this discussion.
When ethnologists undertake the difficult labor of tracing
the origin and relation of different branches of the human race,
one of their methods is to study their languages, their memorial
inscriptions, and the similarity of labial sound. When no written
language can be discovered they resort to names given to
natural objects, as rivers, mountains, plains and animals. When
a people had a written language, however remote the a^e of
their existence, it has been the sesame that opened to paleogra
phers and philologists the degree of civilization attained by that

14 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
people. Language is the detective that discovers the secrets oE
the heart, as well as the operations of the mind. By it we can
know, not only the limit of a man's education, but, also, his
associations — ^the company he keeps. As Cuvier could take a
tooth, or jawbone, and with it construct the frame of the animal
to which it belonged, even one of the mastodon order, so,
although a people may have passed into oblivion so long ago that
their marble temples and statues, their images of bronze, undc-i"
the erosive tooth of Time, may be mingled with the dust of the
desert, yet the etymologist can scan their language and tell us
that people's customs, food, drink, egoism, or altruism, their
form of government, their religion, their gods and goddesses, the
degree of their refinement, knowledge of the arts and the
sciences, their hero-worship, and to what degree they loved and
honored their ancestry — their great men and women.
As Virginia and Massachusetts were the first and mother
colonies in North America, and as from Virginia the South was
mainly settled, and from Massachusetts the other New England
territory and the Northern and Western territory were largely
colonized, let us apply to these two colonies a few of the tests
spoken of above to see if we can determine the characters of
these two peoples. Of course, the test by language has no bear
ing on this question, as both spoke the same tongue. It is to the
matter of egoism, or altruism, of customs and laws, of religion,
of liberty of conscience, and of pride of ancestry, and honor paid
to their heroes and distinguished dead that I shall invite atten
tion. And, first, as to the last named characteristic of the two
colonies. A people who love and honor their parents and great men
adopt every method they can devise, within reasonable limits, to
perpetuate the memory and glory of their kin who were great in
any station and endeavor, whether military, civic, or scientific.
One of the most ob^vious and usual methods is to perpetuate their
names by visible objects and records. They write biography in
their* geography as well as in their books. To their children a!nd
the inquiring stranger within their gates they point with pride to
the monuments they have erected to perpetuate the deeds of
heroism and the achievements in whatever field, of their
ancestors. Palestine was decorated by the Jews with rude monu-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 15
ments of stone in testimony df deeds, events, and even of dreams
they cherished the memory of, and desired to transmit by legend
and signs to future generations. And archaeologists are to day
excavating and sweeping aside the rubbish that Time has piled
over those tokens of admiration and re^verence, to identify them
with the records of history. Every Spartan who passed the
defile of Thermopylae contributed a stone to form the sacred pile
where fell Leonidas and his immortal Three Hundred. A book
could be filled -with such testimonials of pagan hearts. As pagan
hearts were thus moved by altruism and filial love, what should
we not expect of a boastful Christian people whose oral and
printed praise of their ancestry and of themselves can not be
exaggerated, and whose seLf-laudation, like Tennyson's brook,
"flows on forever?"
What has Massachusetts done in this particular for her great
men ? Look at her map. She has fourteen counties that bear the
foUo-wing names : Barnstable, Berkshire, Bristol, Dukes, Essex,
Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk,
Plymouth, Suffolk, Worcester.
Two men are honored — ^Franklin, an American, and Hamp
den, an English hero and patriot, but in no sense a Puritan;
Surely the Puritans did not intend to honor Essex — an Eliza
bethan courtier of the most abject servility. Tbe other twelve
counties bear unaccountable names — ^English and Indian — all
of the neuter gender.
Tbe names' of her postoffices show tbe same lack of rever
ence, respect, and of State and family pride. Of nine hundred
postoffices, less than two and one-half per cent bear the names
of distinguished' persons. Of the two per cent, eleven were
Englishmen, to-wit: Blackstone, Chatham, Chesterfield, Car
lisle, Grafton, Hampden, Hard-wick, Mansfield, Marlboro,
Walpole, Wellington. Of the remainder of their small
per cent, eight were not her sons, to-vrit : Washington, Jeffer
son, Franklin, Monroe, Hancock, Hamilton, Clinton, Randolph.
Of her own distinguished men she has remembered in naming
postoffices,— -Adams, Bancroft, Quincy, Gushing, Warren and
Webster. Why were left unhonored her Paul Revere, Choate,
Sumner, Longfellow, Ha-wtbome, Whittier, Holmes, Butler,
Everett, and many more who have shed glory on her name?

16 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Why not do honor to Bunyan, Baxter, Milton, Cromwell,
Prynne, Burton, Bostwick and many other Puritans? As she
has thus honored Wintbrop, a colonial Governor, why omit
Endicott and Cotton Mather? Wintbrop sold children into
slavery only because they could not pay a debt; Endicott
hanged the Quakers only because they would not change their
religion, and subscribe to the Puritan Articles of Faith, and
Mather hanged and burned old women and young girls only
because some superstitious neurotic accused them of witch
craft, a^d they could not disprove the charge. Why honor
the Governor who made two little children — ^boy and girl,
brother and sister — slaves to work with negroes in the Barba
does, and refuse or neglect to place Governor Endicott and
Mather, her great Scholar and Divine, in tbe sam^ Hall of
Fame, one of whom had murdered innocent men for no other
crime than a difference on doctrines of religion that neither
understood, and the other had broken the necks of women and
children on the gallows for failing to prove that they bad not
been working miracles?
Instead of trying to perpetuate in every laudable way the
memory of her sons, Massachusetts is blanketed with names of
no more memorial significance than are the following few
selected at random: Egypt, Ponkapog, Assinippi, Assonet,
Quinsigamond, Quineapoxet, Wagnoet, Woods Hole, Wey
mouth, Yarmouth, Needham, Eastham, West Chop, and after
these "mouths" and "hams" and "chops," she offends one
of the world's five senses with Buzzard's Bay and Buzzard's
Bay Postoffice. And, as if she had never beard of Hawthorne,
Longfellow, Bryant, Whittier, Choate, Sumner, Everett, and
others of her great sons, and was unable to find more names
on the earth, or in the appendix to Webster's Unabridged, she
doubles, triples and quadruples insignificant names already
bearing' postoffices, by prefixing East, North, South and West
to about 180 towns, sucb as East Weymouth, North Weymouth,
West Yarmouth, South Yarmouth^ South Braintree, etc.
I now take the geography of Virginia and West Virginia.
I include the latter because she bad received her baptism and
honorable nomenclature before she was ripped from her mother
by that barbarian and African process which Henry A. Wise

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 17
Virginia's war-Governor, so felicitously characterized by re-
ehristening her as "the bastard offspring of political rape."
Of West Virginia's forty-one counties, thirty-seven were
named in honor .of distinguished persons, and of these all were
her sons except five. Taking Virginia and West Virginia to
gether there are 142 counties, and all of these perpetuate the
names and glorious deeds of men and one woman — ^Pocahontas.
In order to show that this proof of pride of ancestry and of
lofty sentiment in the South is not confined to Virginia, I
select one other State — the Benjamin of the Thirteen — Geor
gia. Space does not allow me to exhibit other Southern States,
notably North and South Carolina.
Georgia has (1912) 146 counties. In 1905 she bad 137. Of
these 126 bear the names of distinguished men, and nearly all
were Georgians. The exceptions 'are equally honorable to the
State, to-wit: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe,
Greene, Burke, Richmond, Calhoun, Decatur, DeKalb, Effing
ham, Chatham, Franklin, Hancock, Henry, Jackson, Jasper,
Milton, Oglethorpe, Pike, Pulaski, Putnam, Taylor, Webster
and Worth. The counties not named for men attest the patrio
tism of tbe people of Georgia, and also their aestheticism and
admiration of the beautiful and musical. These exceptions
are: Columbia, Liberty, Union, and (Indian names) Chatta
hoochee, Chattooga, Cherokee, Coweta, Catoosa, Oconee.
Since 1905 nine counties have been added and each one
was created, in part, to bear the name of a distinguished Geor
gian. They are: Jenkins (Charles J., who refused, as Gov
ernor, to surrender to the bayonet the seal of his State, and
was deposed by the military) ; Grady (whom even Boston
has applauded vociferously) ; Toombs (Robert) — tbe most bril
liant, probably, of all Americans) ; Stephens (Alexander H.,
Vice-President of the Confederacy, and known world-wide) ;
Turner (Henry G., Representative of ability, known to the
country as one who refused re-election to Congress only be
cause be differed with bis constituents on the silver issue) .
As tbe postoffices in Qeorgia are largely over 2,000 I can
not review them in this limited space. Tbe names of her eoun.-
ties alone illustrate more clearly than do those of Virginia the
lofty filial sentiment of the South, her admiration and love for
I,

18 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
patriots, statesmen and noble kindred. Tbe icasual reader
must be impressed with the conviction that there is a wide
gulf between Virginia iand Massachusetts, and (ex uno disce
omnes), the same condition exists in a larger degree between
the States in tbe aggregate — North and South. There are
many who have not measured the magnitude of tbe gulf be
tween them.
Now, what does the nomenclature adopted by the two colo
nies and States indicate? It shows that their peoples are of
different origin. A philologist would say, after a glance, that
they differed widely in sentiment, in feeling, in filial devotion
and pride, and in social culture. What does history say ? Why
did the sons of Virginia give to her counties such names as
King and Queen, Prince Frederick, Prince George, Prince Wil
liam, Prince Edward, King William, Orange, Elizabeth City,
Louisa, and others which were of the royalty and the nobility
of England? Virginia was named in honor of the Virgin
Queen, Elizabeth. Why did Massachusetts omit all such names,
and daub and plaster her face with such crude material as I
have given a few samples of? Was it accidental? Was it a
vagary that ran through two centuries, from father to son
during six generations? Those names were not dra-wn from
a bat. No ! Those names betray unmistakably the nature of
the people who established Massachusetts Bay. They were in
and of one class in England, and the Virginia colonists were
in and of a different and much higher social class in England.
The Virginians were not toadies and flunkeys in the gutter,
reaching up to touch the hems of garments worn by tbe nobil
ity, and giving to their children and homes noble names that
thrift might follow. Association, social and blood relations
suggested those names. They were familiar household sounds.
Some of the nobility came to Virginia. One of them has but
recently become vested, by descent and failure of issue, with
the title of Lord Fairfax. Be it said to his credit tbat be hesi
tated and debated whether he would not renounce the title
and remain a citizen of Virginia.
In England the ancestors of Virginia's colonists were either
of the nobility or were of the leisure class that did not labor.
They followed the hounds and tbe turf as a gentleman's sport;

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 19
and as Thackeray portrays in "The Virginians," indulged, men
and women, in games of chance. Massachusetts was founded-
by Puritans; Virginia was founded by the Cavaliers. These
two were of or near the extremes in tbe social order of England.
They were not only not in touch socially, but were as far apart
as the poles in politics, tastes, habits, sentiment, temperamenty
amusements, occupation, and, above all, in religion. Tbe Cava
lier clung to the old order of government. Tbe Puritan was not
only a dissenter, a Nonconformist, but was a leveler, and desired
to overthrow the government and its religion, roots, trunk and
branches. Indeed, the position of the two, the Puritans and tbe
Cavaliers in England, is well typified by the scene of the Cavalier
seated in Parliament, while the Puritan, like Guy Fawkes, was
in the basement burrowing and packing gunpowder to blow up
the Parliament. One was an organizer for the general good.
The other was a disorganizer for his special benefit.
Is it cause for wonder that two peoples with such opposite
origins should exhibit sucb contrariety and inequality in senti
ment, feeling and action? The Cavaliers were born and reared
in affluence near the throne ; tbe Puritans were born and reared
in poverty and many were servants to the nobility ; one conform
ing to tbe established order of State and Church ; the other so
angular and rebellious that they despised both the State
and the Church, and flouted every doctrine and form of
religion — Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopal — and
demanded that their o^wn peculiar religious tenets should be
accepted by all other religionists as a condition precedent to
peace and good order in the State.
T^he Cavaliers were educated in tbe colleges and universities
of England and Continental Europe; the Puritans, -with few
exceptions, that will be named later on, received scant parochial
education, and passed over the British Channel but once, and
that was when their rebellious spirit at home aroused the gov
ernment to action and a few fled to Holland where they prepared
for their final exodus across tbe Atlantic in 1620.
I beg to say that I am not, out on a crusade against the
Puritans. I do not subscribe to Macaulay's conclusion that the
Puritans condemned bearbaiting, not because it was cruelty to
the bear, but because the sport gave pleasure to the spectators.

20 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
I am not -writing to arouse sectionalism. I desire to allay it.
Sectionalism was not littered in the South, and, so far as I know,
taught as I have been by continuous residence in the South, her
people deplore the cleavage of sectional animus. But when a
man becomes supercilious, arrogant and abusive, and dons his
Pharisaical robe, he provokes inquiry into his title to assumed
superiority. When a man charges bis neighbor with dire offenses
he is open to a challenge to produce his proof. When a man has
committed crimes against the peace of the State, the welfare of
all citizens demands an investigation. So, wben a quarrel begins
between two individuals and homicide ensues, and each charges
the other with being the aggressor, the question for a judge and
jury to determine is, who was the aggressor ? This is necessary
in order to determine whether the homicide was justifiable.
If one section of our Union has been arrogant and abusive;
has charged another section with offenses iagainst the law ; has
committed crimes against individuals as well as against the laws
and peace of the State ; has unjustifiably provoked a disastrous
war, ^hat section should be the one held responsible for all con
sequences that followed. It is my purpose to endeavor to show
who provoked the war between tbe North and the South, and'I
begin the legal inquiry by an examination into the history of the
Puritan. I assume as my minor premise that bad there been no
Puritan there could b^ve been no war. This I shall establish
later by proofs, and my chief -witness shall be tbe Puritan. Had
there been no Puritan there would have been no Abolitionist,
for his sire was the Puritan and bis dam was tbe negro.
And just here a remark is suggested by that scrap of gene
alogy. It is that the Republican party of to-day has stolen and
is masquerading under the name of the party of Jefferson, Madi
son and Jackson, and is the offspring — the primogenitor — of that
child of the Puritan begotten of the negro. The South was
present when that Party's father was born, and afterward
witnessed that child's shame at its base parentage, which it tried
to escape by being christened "Republican." But the change
of name did not change the infant's spots nor its skin. True to
its parentage it has all the greed, rapacity, fanaticism and law
lessness of its father, and much of the immorality and 'uncon
querable, iimate proclivity of the mother for appropriating the

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 21
property of others, that have attained for father and mother and
child international reputation. In this genealogy can be seen
one of the insuperable obstacles 'in tbe way of the benevolent
propagandism of Mr. Taft — tbat is, his desire to absorb tbe
South in the Abolition Party., It may be that Faith can remove
mountains, but there is a high wall tbat neither Faith nor Mr.
Taft's blandest "smile" can budge.
I am not assuming to sit in judgment and to decide which
of the two peoples I am hastily reviewing is the superior.
"Whether it is nobler in the mind" to pursue the vocations and
avocations adopted by the Puritans, or those followed by the
Cavaliers ; whether it was better to chase the fox witb hounds
and thus save tbe chickens, or to chase Quakers and hang them
for dissenting from a creed tbat they could not, in conscience,
believe ; whether it was more conducive to morality and happi
ness to train horses for the turf and to run them for a wager,
or to teach from pulpits tbe duty to God to bunt and run down
old women and young girls, and hang them on tbe sole basis of
a superstition that they could repeat the miracles performed
under Divine authority by Moses and afflict cattle with murrain
by looking over a neighbor's fence ; whether it was more humane
or less fiendish to hang and bum women and children for
imaginary witchcraft, or to sentence only one woman accused
of witchcraft to be ducked as "common scolds" were punished
in England ages ago, and for the judge to relent and revoke bis
order ; whether it was more cruel and barbarous to steal negroes
in Afrina, and chain them between decks and to deprive them
forever of personalliberty,make them slaves and sell the few who
did not perish of hunger and thirst while floating in their own
filth in the middle passage from Africa to New England, or for
Virginians to buy the surviving slaves— paying for them in full
— and to treat them with humanity ; whether it was more accept
able to God to be worshiped under thirty-nine Articles of Faith,
which a sinner could believe and be saved, or go his way without
persecution in this life and take his chance of being damned in
the next for unbelief, or to worship God under eighty-two
"Articles of Faith, or be damned in this life for refusing to accept
them, and have his neck broken by a hangman's rope for heresy ;
whether it was more just and promotive of personal liberty and

22 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
freedom of conscience to leave each citizen free to attend divine
worship at his will, or to enact laws that every man, woman and
child shall go to church a stated number of times each Sabbath,
or be fined. so many shillings, and, on failing to pay, to be sold
into negro slavery and shipped to the Barbadoes, to collect the.
amount of the fine ; — ^these and other questions that -will arise in
this discussion are questions of casuistry, of conscience, and of
such intimate knowledge of the Divine will and pleasure tbat I
do not understand and will not assume to decide them. There
is one fact, however, on which I would have Mr. Taft exercise
his judicial acumen. It is this, — thati the religion of the
Thirty-nine Articles of Faith is as firmly grounded today as it
was three hundred years ago, while the intolerant religion of
the Eighty-two Articles of Faith was long ago exploded and,
like an exploded meteor in space, is floating in a hundred frag
mentary forms — headed by Fourierism and Mormonism, and
ending, for the present only, in Abolitionism, Socialism, Mis
cegenation and Eddy-Bakerism.

CHAPTER V.
PURITAN NOMENCLATURE.— ( Continued. )
Words are things and names are words. I need not tell
of the latent, dynamic power that abides in a word. It is the
mightiest , instrument for good or evil that Gpd has given to
man. It can make a hero, or mar a saint. ' ' Tbe pen is mightier
than the sword" — ^not the pen, but the word the pen records.
Who knew this truism better than the Puritans?
When tbe Federal Constitution, by guaranteeing freedom
of speech and of conscience and by separation of Church and
State, deprived those fanatics of exercising, at pleasure, their
brutal practice of banishing and hanging any who dissented
from their theocratic mummery, they turned at once, with im
petuous fury, on their old enemy, the Cavaliers, to wrest from
them the property sold to them under guaranty of title by the
Puritans. One of these fanatics under the power Of a momen
tary flash tbat bordered on genius, in order to gather a mob
of followers and to bold them, cried out that "the Constitu
tion is a covenant with Death and an agreement -with Hell."
The insanity of tbe phrase, did not in the least impair its vigor
and energizing power over the ignorant multitude it was
framed to excite.
No people, no sect, no fanatics ever sought more diligently
for verbal weapons to enforce a creed, to damn imaginary here
tics, to perpetuate a Faith, or to deceive tbe public than have
tbe Puritans from the age when, as an ethnic "sport," they
appeared a nondescript and a misfit in English history, do-wn
to their last, but not their final triumph in chicanery, the devis
ing of the schedule on wool and cotton in tbe Payne-Aldrich-
Cannon-Taft Tariff bill.
That they are not always fortunate in the selection of
names will further appear to the discomfiture of their warm
est defenders, when I shall collate a few of the barbarisms
with which they branded their children at the baptismal font.

24 TRUE VINDICATION OF, THE SOUTH

This will be shown under the head, "Puritan Fanaticism,"
which includes the hagiology of this unparalleled religious
monstrosity. The last two paragraphs, although seemingly digressions,
have a direct bearing on the Puritan's nomenclature, to which
I now return. The question is — why is the face of Massa
chusetts daubed and warted all over with such meaningless,
not to say raucous and repellent names? It was not to com
pliment the Indians. They were abhorred and despised by the
Puritans, whose scalps adorned the surrounding wigwams. In
the war with the Pequots or Pequods, tbe Indians taken prison
ers, against all rules of modern warfare, were shipped to the
West Indies and Barbadoes and sold as slaves. Even the wife
of Philip, King of the Pequods, and their only son, were
doomed to that inhuman fate.
By all tbe rules that commonly influence men in the selec
tion of names, we should more reasonably expect to find tovras
in Massachusetts named for some of her negro slaves than for
her Indian foes. In scanning the map and trying to pronounce
the names of some of the towns, .as so many are Indian, it is
worthy of note that we do not stumble over "Aponopemquin,"
who, for his piety after the manner of the Puritans, was dub
bed by them "Old Jacob." This distinction was conferred be
cause Aponopemquin "prayed to God."
Before giving names to icats and dogs even negroes con
over a list of names to find one that has some association or
euphony to commend it. There is but one conclusion to be
drawn. It is that the Puritans bad no thought nor desire to
honor their ancestors or men distinguished in Church, State,
literature, science, or art. Whatever possessed or ol(sessed
them when things were to be named, they left footprints on
the sands of New England that will endure as long as her
granite hills. They selected and domiciled a thousand wit
nesses tbat testify to the Puritans' barrenness of gentility, of
refined sentiment, (of filial devotion, of pride of ancestry — so
barren that the words of their savage foes, that would balk a
Russian, are their deliberate choice over the names of their

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 2S
Christian brothers, statesmen and heroic dead. Here are some
of them: NOMENCLATURE.
Date 1543 — Gersham Hilles.
1688 — ^Manasseh Jeake.
1802 — ^Zaphnaphpoaneab Clark.
1803 — ^Mahershelal-bash-baz Bradford.
1564 — ^Abdias Pownall.
Barnabas Pownall.
EzekielPostbumus ' '
Repentence ' '
1589 — ^Baraleel NichoUson.
Aholiab NichoUson.
Rebecca ' '
1613 — Jael Mainwaring.
1617— Ezekyell Culvenvill.
1582 — ^Zackary Newton.
One Edmond Snape, Puritan preacher, promised to bap
tize a neighbor's child. He said to the father, "You
must give it a Christian name allowed in the Scripture. ' '
The father said his wife wanted the name of her father,
Richard, given to the child. When the neighbors were
assembled,, and Snape delivered a long harangue and
asked for the name for baptism, and Richard was given,
he refused to baptize tbe child and stood there until
the crowd dispersed.
1563 — A Puritan's wife had twins and he had them baptized
"Cain and Abel."
Another chose Ramoth-Gilead for his son to wear.
Mr. Pegdeii bad five sons. They were christened in the
order bom — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the
fifth was christened Acts-Apostles.
Lamentations Chapman was sued in Chancery about
1590.Some children were baptized "Dust-and- Ashes."
1509 — ^Affray Mahne.

26 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
1614 — Aphora Merrewether.
I have said the Puritans were of the lowest social order — ¦
and not educated. The reader can not fail to observe
their ignorance. In choosing names idem sonans was
their only guide. Evidently they could not read. Take
the name "Aphrah" in one of Micah 's lugubrious
prophecies — "Declare ye not it at Gath * * '* in the
bouse of Aphrah roll thyself in the duSt." Aphrah
means dust. In the Puritans ' baptisms Aphrah is spelled
Affray, Affera, Afra, Aphora, Aphoric, Aphoro.
When the preacher who was christening a child for
whom the name Achseb (Caleb's daughter) had been
chosen, asked, "What name?" One woman said
"Axber." He turned to another, who replied "Axher."
A third said "Axher." By perseverance, for which
Puritans and all fanatics and lunatics are distinguished,
he learned that the name desired was Achseb. Tbe high
ways, byways, paths, lanes, alleys, and graveyards
were stre-wn for three centuries -with Drusillas, Sap-
phiras, Cecilias, Rebeccas, Deborahs, Sarahs, Susannahs,
Judiths, Faiths, Hopes, Charities, Priscillas, Dorcases,
Tabithas, Marthas, Repentances, Hepzibabs, Adahs,
¦ Tillahs, Methetabels, Jehviadas, Equilas, Eunices, Adnas,
Dinahs, Tamaras, Daniels, Ezekiels, (spelled six ways,
showing the ignorance of the preachers who entered the
names on the parish' registers.)
Here is a list of Jurors :
Redeemed Campton.
Stand-Fast-on-High Stringer.
Weep-not Billing.
Called Lower.
Elected Mitchell.
Renewed Wisbury.
Fly-Fornication Richardson. i
Figbt-tbe-Good-Fight-of-Faith White.
Kill-sin Pemble.
Preserved Fish.

CHAPTER VI.
SLAVERY IN MASSACHUSETTS.
Needless is it to tell any American that tbe Puritans'
"shadow of a great rock in a weary land," for forty years, was
Daniel Webster. But when, in 1850, in the trial between the
North and the South, he turned "State's evidence," the Puri
tan's favorite avenger — tbe mob — shunted him do-wn, drove him
to Marshfield, hemmed bim in and there crushed his great heart
that loved Massachusetts so well as to sacrifice bis honor in ber
service. As a complete and final answer to the Puritans'
attempt to dodge the wrath of Jehovah, scathing the North in
every region, from Back Bay, Beacon Street, Tremont Street, to
tbe reeking slums, I give a quotation from Mr. Webster's address
December 22, 1820, delivered on Plymouth Rock, entitled "First
Settlement of New England" :
"I deem it my duty on this occasion to suggest that the land
is not yet wholly free from the contamination of a traffic, at
which every feeling of humanity must forever revolt, — ^I mean
tbe African slave-trade. Neither public sentiment, nor the law,
has hitherto been able entirely to put an end to this odious and
abominable trade. At tbe moment when God in His mercy has
blessed the Christian world with a universal peace, there is
reason to fear tbat, to tbe disgrace of the Christian name and
character, new efforts are making for the extension of this trade
by subjects and citizens of Christian States, in whose hearts
there dwell no sentiments of humanity or of justice, and over
whom neither the fear of God nor tbe fear of man exercises a
control. In the sight of our law the African slave-trader is a
pirate and a felon; and in the sight of Heaven,' an offender far
beyond the ordinary depth of human guilt. There is no brighter
page of our history, than that which records the measures which
have been adopted by the government at an early day, and at
different times since, for the suppression of this traffic ; and I
would call on all the tme sons of New England to co-operate
with the laws of man, and the justice of Heaven. If there be.

28 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
within the extent of our knowledge or influence, any participa
tion in this traffic, let us pledge ourselves here, upon tbe rock of
Plymouth, to extirpate and destroy it. It is not fit tbat tbe land
of the Pilgrims should bear the shame longer. I bear the sound
of the hammer, I see the smoke of the furnaces wbere manacles
and fetters are still forged for human limbs. I see the visages
of those who by stealth and at midnight labor in this work of
hell, foul and dark, as may become the artificers of such instru
ments of misery and torture. Let tbat spot be purified, or let
it cease to be of New England. ' '
Let it not be overlooked that he was speaking in the present
tense — of conditions in December, 1820 — ^thirty years after the
Puritans began to petition Congress to abolish slavery, and
thirty-three years after the Puritan deputies in tbe Convention
that framed the Constitution affected such sensitiveness of con
science as to wrangle over tbe horrors of slavery until they got
a valuable concession for consenting to the fugitive slave clause,
and to the continuance of the slave-trade until A. D. 1808. Note
this language :
"It is not fit that the land of the Pilgrims should bear this
shame longer. I hear the sound of the hammer, I see the smoke
of the furnace where manacles and fetters are still forged for
human, limbs, I see the visages of those who, by stealth, and at
midnight, labor in this work of hell, foul and dark, as may
become the artificers of such instruments of misery and torture.
Let that spot be purified, or let it cease to be of New England ! ' '
And this appeal by New England's greatest Prophet and
Priest !
Let us hear another witness on slavery during 150 years, in
the first colony of the New England group — the bellwether of
the flock; the one whose filio-pietistic historians — ^in the vain
struggle to bury out of sight her mountainous avarice, hypocrisy,
perfidy to prisoners, fanaticism worse than insanity, cruelty to
all races, white, black and brown — ^have written more books and
pamphlets, preached more sermons, delivered more maudUn
post-prandial speeches and set orations, and spun more sailors'
yarns than Scheherazade invented through a thousand and one
dismal days, to spin during as many nights to save her life.
This witness is George H. Moore, Librarian of the New York

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 29
Historical Society and corresponding member of tbe Mass
achusetts Historical Society. His book is entitled "NOTES ON
THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY IN MASSACHUSETTS." This
book appeared in 1866, one year after Massachusetts had ceased
from her bloody work of four years to free the negroes she had
enslaved and sold to the South. Mr. Moore 's book is not written
as a history. It is a careful compilation of extracts from his
tories, legislation, journals, judgments of courts, statutes, execu
tive documents, etc., some of which "import absolute verity,"
and aU are free from the suspicion of bias. The reader will
note that tbe various extracts contain proof of the above charges
of fanaticism, avarice, hypocrisy, perfidy, treachery, and cruelty.
Tbe lame and impotent effort of the statesmen in Massa
chusetts, during a century, to legislate slavery out of the colony,
forms the most ludicrous chapter in all the solemn farces in the
history of hjrpocrisy, and of man's success in illustrating "how
not to do it." In fact, tbe entire history of negro slavery in
that nursery of "moral ideas" is, in the moral and intellectual
realms, as fantastical, spasmodic and neurotic as is her record
made by her religious fanatics. The two are like the two nega
tive poles of electricity — they never come together. There was
a constant battle-royal between Avarice and a weak antagonist
wearing tbe masque of Conscience — ^with Avarice always in the
ascendant. Tbe forces arrayed under the banner of Conscience,
while holding the vantage ground in every conflict, were too
weak to dislodge the foe. In every assault. Conscience, like
tbe great New York statesman, "Me Too," always fell outside
the breastworks. This imequal struggle was waged during a
hundred and fifty years. And, Mr. Moore says, the indisputable
record shows that Conscience never succeeded in vanquishihg
its stubborn foe; not until the Southern States went to its
assistance in 1866, by voting to adopt the 13th Amendment to
the Constitution. The advantage Avarice held to the last was
that it occupied the citadel with headquarters in palaces along
Beacon Street, Tremont and Commonwealth, faring sumptuously
on pumpkin pie, Boston beans, champagne and the rarest
Havanas, while Conscience had to camp outside, having no
bounties to buy recruits, in the valley of dry bones of the mur
dered Quakers, womep and children, their ovra innocent victims,

30 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
mingled with the skeletons of a hundred thousand negro slaves
contributed to the heap by her enemy — ^Avarice.
Now to the law anA testimony as furnished by that impar
tial "chronicler of the times," George H. Moore. His opening
sentence is in these words: "We find the earliest records of
the history of slavery in Massachusetts at the period of the
Pequod War — a few years after the Puritan settlementi of the
colony. Prior to that time an occasional; offender against the
laws was punished by being sold into slavery or adjudged to
servitude ; but the institution first appears clearly and distinctly
in the enslaving of Indians captured in war." That it ma,v
appear beyond question that Mr. George H. Moore had no pro-
slavery proclivities, I quote the closing sentence in the para
graph just quoted from: "And at the outset we desire to say
that in this history there is nothing to comfort pro-slavery men
anywhere. The stains which slavery has left on the proud
escutcheon even of Massachusetts, are quite as significant of its
hideous character as the satanic defiance of God and Humanity
which accompanied the laying of the corner-stone of tbe Slave
holders ' Confederacy. "
Page 4. He says: "At any rate, it is certain that in the
Pequod War they took many prisoners. Some of these, who
had been disposed of to particular persons in tbe country, ran
away, and being brought in again, were branded on the shoulder.
In July, 1637, Wintbrop says, 'We bad now slain and taken, in
all, about seven hundred. We sent fifteen of the boys and two
women to Bermuda, by Mr. Pierce; but he, missing it, carried
them to Providence Isle. The prisoners were divided, some
to those of the Connecticut Colony and tbe rest to us. Of these
we sent the male children to Bermuda, by Mr. William Pierce,
and the women and maid children are disposed aboute in the
tonnes.' "
Hubbard, a contemporary historian of the Indian Wars, con
firms that statement of Gov. Wintbrop.
Winthrop, in his Journal of Feb. 26tb, 1638, says: "Mr.
Pierce, in the Salem ship, the Desire, returned from the West
Indies after seven months. He had been at Providence, and
bought some cotton, and tobacco, and negroes, etc., from thence,
and salt from Tertugos." Long afterwards Dr. Belknap said

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 31
of the slave-trade, tbat the rum distilled in Massachusetts was
"the mainspring of this traffick." Josselyn says that "they
sent the male children of the Pequots to the Bermudas. ' '
This single cargo of women and children was probably not
the only one sent, for the Company of Providence Island, in
replying from London in 1638, July 3rd, to letters from the
authorities in the island, direct special care to be taken of the
' ' Cannibal negroes brought from New England. ' ' And in 1639,
when the Company feared that the number of the negroes might
become too great to be managed, the authorities thought they
might be sold and sent to New England or Virginia. The ship
"Desire" was a vessel of one hundred and twenty tons, built
at Marblehead in 1636, one of the earliest built in the Colony.
Josselyn visited New England twice, and spent about ten years
in this country . In speaking of the people of Boston he mentions
that the people ' ' are well accommodated with servants * * *
of these some are English, others negroes. ' '
It will be observed that this first entrance into tbe slave-
trade was not a private, individual speculation. It was the
enterprise of the authorities of the Colony. And on the 13tb
of March, 1639, it was ordered by the General Court "that 318s
should be paid Leiftenant Davenport for the present, for charge
disbursed for tbe slaves, which, when they have earned it, bee
is to repay it back againe." Tbe marginal note is, "Lieft.
Davenport to keep tbe slaves."
The first statute established on slavery in America is to be
found in the famous CODE OF FUNDAMENTALS, or BODY
OP LIBERTIES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS COLONY IN
NEW ENGLAND— the first code of laws of that colony, adopted
in December, 1641. These liberties had been, after a long
struggle between the magistrates and the people, extracted from
the reluctant grasp of the former. "Tbe people bad (1639)
long desired a body of laws, and thought their condition very
unsafe, while so much power rested in the discretion of magis
trates." (Winthrop, I, 322.) Never were the demands of a
free people eluded by their public servants with more of tbe
concortions as well as wisdom of the serpent. But to the law

32 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
and the testimony. The ninety-first article of tbe Body of
Liberties appears as follows, under the head of
"LIBERTIES OF FORREINERS AND STRANGERS:
"91. There shall never be any bond slaverie, villinage or
captivitie amongst us unless it be lawfuU captives taken in just
warres, and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are
sold to us. And these shall have all tbe liberties and Christian
usages which the law of God established in Israeli concerning
such persons doeth morally require. This exempts none from
servitude who shall be Judged thereto by Authoritie."
In the second printed edition, that of 1660, the law appears
as follows, under the title ' ' BOND SLAVERY. ' '
"It is Ordered by this Court & Authority thereof; that there
shall never be any bond-slavery, villenage or captivity amongst
us, unless it be LawfuU captives, taken in just warrs, or such
as shall willingly sell themselves, or are sold to us, and such
shall have the liberties, & Christian usages which the Law of
God established in Israel, Concerning such persons, doth morally
require, provided this exempts none from servitude, who shall
be judged thereto by authority. ' ' A copy of this law is now pre
served in the Library of the American Antiquarian Society at
Worcester, in Massachusetts.
Thus stood the statute through the whole colonial period,
and it was never expressly repealed. Based on the Mosaic code,
it is an absolute recognition of slavery as a legitimate status,
and of tbe right of one man to sell himself as well as that of
another man to buy him. It sanctions the slave-trade, and the
.perpetual bondage of Indians and negroes, their chUdren and
their chUdren 's chUdren, and entitled Massachusetts to pre
cedence over any and all the other colonies in similar legislation.
It anticipated by many years anything of the sort to be found
in the statutes of Virginia, or Maryland, or South Carolina, and
nothing like it is to be found in the contemporary codes of her
sister colonies in New England. Yet this very law has been
gravely cited in a paper communicated to tbe Massachusetts
Historical Society, and t-wice reprinted in its publication -without
challenge or correction, as an evidence that "so far as it felt
free to follow its own inclinations, uncontrolled by tbe action
of the mother country, Massachusetts was hostile to slavery as

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 33
an institution." And witb the statute before them, it has been
persistently asserted and repeated by all sorts of authorities,
historical and legal, up to that of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the Commonwealth, that "slavery to a
certain extent seems to have crept in; not probably by force
of any law, for none such is found or known to exist."
For over a hundred years negroes were sold in Massachusetts
as slaves and their children were born in slavery during at
least four generations, and one negro, Edom London, had been
recognized as a slave to the extent of being sold and bought by
eleven masters. Chief Justice Parsons in making tbe decision,
said that the general practice and common usage bad been
opposed to this opinion, but sustained the opinion that a negro
bom in tbe State before tbe Constitution of 1780 was born free,
although born of a female slave. Chief Justice Parker, in 1816,
cautiously confirmed this view of the subject by his predecessor.
He said, ' ' The practice was * * * to consider such issue as
slaves, and the property of the master of the parents, liable to
be sold and transferred like other chattels, \nd as assets in the
hands of executors and administrators." He adds, "We think
there is no doubt that, at any period of our history, the issue of
a slave husband and a free wife would have been declared free. ' '
"His chUdren, if tbe issue of a marriage with a slave, would,
immediately on their birth, become tbe property of his master,
or of the master of the female slave."
Notwithstanding all this, in Mr. Sumner's famous speech in
the Senate, June 28th, 1854, he boldly asserted that "in all ber
annals, no person was ever bom a slave on the soil of Massa
chusetts," and "if, in point of fact, the issue of slaves was some
times held in bondage, it was never sanctioned by -Any statute-
law of Colony or Commonwealth."
The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of
New England, 19th May, 1643, which commence with tbe
famous recital of their object in coming into those parts of
America, viz., "to advance tbe Kingdome of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospell in puritie -with
peace," practically recognize the lawful existence of slavery.
The fourth Article, which provides for the due adjustment of

34 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
the expense or "charge of all just warrs whether offensive or
defensive," concludes as follows:
"And that according to their different charge of each juris-
dieeon and plantacon, the whole advantage of the warr (if it
please God to bless their Endeavours) whether it be in lands,
goods, or persons, shall be proportionably devided among the
said Confederates." The original of the Fugitive Slave Law
provision in the Federal Constitution is to be traced to this
Confederacy, in which Massachusetts was the ruling colony.
Mr. Moore says: "Historians have generally supposed that
tbe transactions in p.644-5, in which Thomas Keyfer and one
James Smith, the latter a member of the church of Boston,
were implicated, first brought upon the icolonies the guilt of
participating in the traffic of African slaves. The account
which we have given of the voyage of the first colonial slave-
ship, the Desire, shows this to have been an error, and that
which we shall give to these transactions wiU expose another
of quite as mach importance." Mr. Moore then quotes from
the historian Hildreth in his story .of New England theocracy,
and says:
' ' The first code of laws in Massachusetts established slavery,
as we have shown, and at the very birth of the foreign com
merce of New England the African slave-trade became a regu
lar business. The ships which took cargoes of slaves and fish
to Madeira and the Canaries were accustomed to touch on the
coast of Guinea to trade for negroes, who were carried gener
ally to Barbadoes, or the other English Islands in the West
Indies, the demand for them at home being small. In fact.
Gov. Winthrop in his Journal made this entry: 'One of our
ships, which went to tbe Canaries with pipe-staves in the be
ginning of November last, returned now (1645) and brought
wine, and sugar, and salt, and some tobacco, which she had
at Barbadoes, in exchange for Africoes, which she carried
from the Isle of Maio. ' "
In 1646, the Commissioners of the United Colonies made a
very remarkable order, practically authorizing, upon complaint
of trespass by the Indians, the seizure of "any of that planta
tion of Indians that shall entertain, protect, or i-escue the of-
^fender." The order further proceeds: "And, because it wiU
be chargeable keeping Indians in prisone, and if they should

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 35
escape, they are like to prove more insolent and dangerous
after, that upon sucb seazure, tbe delinquent or satisfaction
be againe demanded, of the Sagamore or plantation of Indians
guilty or accessory as before, and if it be denyed, that then
the magistrates of the Jurisdiccon deliver up the Indians leased
to tbe party or parties indamaged, either to serve, or to be
shipped out and exchanged for Negroes as the cause will justly
beare. ' '
Two things must be noted here, viz., the export for trade
of Indians for negroes, and the measure of ' ' justice ' ' in those
days between the colonists and tbe natives. Mr. Moore also
notes the treatment of the two children,, Daniel and Provided
Soutbwick, son and daughter to Lawrence Soutbwick, who on
June 29th, 1658, were fined 10£, but their fines not being paid,
and tbe parties (as is stated in the proceedings) "pretending
tljey have no estates, resolving not to worke and others like
wise have been fjmed and more like to be fyned" — tbe Gen
eral Court were caUed upon in the following year, May llth,
1659, to decide what icourse should be taken for the satisfac
tion of the fines. This they did, aiter due deliberation, by a
resolution empowering the County Treasurers to sell the said
persons to any of the English nation at Virginia or Barbadoes^
in accordance with their law :^or the sale of poor and delin
quent debtors. To accomplish this they wrested their own law
from its just application, for the special law concerning fines
did not permit them to go beyond imprisonment for non-pay
ment. J
The father and mother of these children, who had before
suffered in their estate and persons, were at the same time
banished on pain of death, and took refuge in Shelter Island,
where they shortly afterward died. The Treasurer, on a1>
tempting to find passage for the children to Barbadoes, in
exiecution of tbe order of sale, found "none willing to take
or carry them." Thus tbe entire design failed, only through
the reluctance of these shipmasters to aid in its consummation.
Provided Soutbwick was subsequently, in tbe same year, in'
company with several other Quaker ladies, "whipt with tenn
stripes," and afterwards "committed to prison to be proceeded
¦with as the law directs."

CHAPTER VII.
SLAVERY IN MASSACHUSETTS.
(Continued.)
In August, 1675, tbe CouncU at Plymouth ordered the sale
of a company of Indians, "being men, women and children,
in number 112. The Treasurer made the sale "in the coun-
tryes bebalfe." (Plymouth Records, v. 173.)
A short time after tbe Council made a similar dispo
sition of 57 more Indians who had come in and surrendered.
These were condemned to perpetual servitude, and the Treas
urer was ordered to make sale of them, "to and for the use
of the coUonie."
One item Mr. Moore gives is that tbe Colony of Massa-
chussets for 188 Indians, prisoners of war, received 397£.
(Plymouth Records, x., 401.)
Mr. Moore says — "There is a peculiar significance in the
phrase which occurs in the Records — sent away by the Treas
urer. It means sold into slavery.*' (Mass. Records, v. 58.)
He says: "Tbe statistics of tbe traffic carried on by the'
Colony Treasurer cannot be ascertained from any sources now
at command. But great numbers of Phillip 's people were sold
as slaves in foreign countries. In tbe beginning of the war
Captain Moseley captured 80, who were confined at Plymouth.
In September following 178 were put on board a vessel com
manded by Captain Sprague, who sailed from Plymouth with
them for Spain.
"The Apostle Eliot's earnest remonstrance is a glorious
memorial of his fearless devotion to reason and humanity —
to which neither the rulers nor tbe people of Massachusetts
were then inclined to listen. He appeared to the Governor and
Council, and, among other things, said: 'Christ hath said,
blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. This
usage of them is worse than death. * * * jt seemeth to me,
that to sell them away for slaves is to binder the inlargement
of Christ's kingdom. * * * To sell souls for money seemeth

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 87
to me a dangerous merchandise. If they deserve to die, it is
far better to be put to death under godly governors, who will
take religious care tbat means may be used that they may die
penitently.' * * * (Deut. 23: 15-16. Plymouth Colony
Records.) "There is nothing to show that the Council gave heed to
the petition of Eliot, but it has been disclosed that tbe General
Court tbe same day shipped several Indians away. The Gen
eral Court, 1678, passed an order prohibiting everybody in the
Colony, or elsewhere, 'to buy any of tbe Indian children of any
of those captive salvages,, without special leave, liking and
approbation of the government of this jurisdiction.' "
It were well if the record were no worse; but to all this
is to be added the baseness of treachery and falsehood. Many
of these prisoners surrendered, and still greater numbers came
in voluntarUy to submit, upon tbe promise that they and their
wives and children should have their lives spared, and none
of them be transported out of the country. In one instance,
narrated by the famous Captain Church himself, no less than
"eight score persons" were "without any regard to the
promises made them on their surrendering themselves, carried
away to Plymouth, there sold and transported out of the coun
try." (Church, 23, 24, 41, 51, 57. Baylies, in his Memoir of
Plymouth Colony, Part III., pp. 47, 48, gives some additonal
particulars of this affair.
I give here another quotation from Mr. Moore to illustrate
the Puritan's conscience. "After tbe destruction of Dart
mouth, the Plymouth forces (soldiers) were ordered there, and
as the Dartmouth Indians had not been concerned in this out
rage, a negotiation was commenced -with them. By the persua
sion of Ralph Earl, and tbe promise of Captain Eels, who com
manded the Plymouth forces, they were induced to surrender
themselves as prisoners, and were conducted to Plymouth.
Notwithstanding the promises by which they had been allured
to submit, notvrithstanding the earnest, vehement, and indig
nant remonstrances of Eels, Church and Earl, the government,
to their eternal infamy, ordered the whole to be sold as slaves,
and they were transported out of tbe country, being about 160
in number. So indignant was Church at tbe commission of

88 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
this vUe act, that the government never forgave the warmth
and the bitterness of his expressions, and the resentment that
was then engendered induced them to -withdraw all command
from this brave, skillful, honest, open-hearted and generous
man, untU the fear of utter destruction compelled them, sub
sequently, to entrust bim with a bigh command. This mean
and treacherous conduct alienated aU the Indians who were
doubtful, and even those who were strongly predisposed to
join the English."
Easton, in bis Relation, p. 21, says: "Philip being flead;
about a 150 Indians came in to a Plimouth Garrison volentarly.
Plymouth authority sould aU for Slafes (but about six of them)
to be carried out of the country."
Plymouth Colony gave Church authority to receive certain
fugitives (whether men, women, or children) from the .authori
ties of the Rhode Island government, 1676. He was "im-
powered to sell and dispose of such of them, and so many as
he shall see cause for, there : to the Inhabitants or others, for
Term of Life, or for shorter time, as there may be reasons.
And his acting, herein, shall at all times be o-wned and justified
by the said CoUony."
Nor did the Christian Indians or Praying Indians escape
the relentless hostility and cupidity of the whites. Besides
other cruelties, instances are not wanting in which some of these
were sold as slaves,"* and under accusations which turned out to
be utterly false and without foundation. (Gookin's Hist, of the
Christian Indians.)
President Mather (President of the High Court) in relating
the battle in August, 1676, tbe last one of tbe war, says : "Philip
hardly escaped with his life also. He had fled and left his
peage behind him, also his squaw and son were taken captive,
and are now prisoners 'at Plymouth. Thus hath God brought
this grand enemy into great misery before be quite destroy him.
It must needs be bitter as death to him to lose bis wife and only
son (for the Indians are marvellous fond and affectionate tow
ards their children) besides other relations, and almost all his
subjects, and country also."
Edw. Everett, in his address at Bloody Brook, 1835, among
. other things said : "And what was the fate of Philip 's wife and

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 39
son? This is a tale for husbands and wives, for parents and
children. Young men and women, you can not understand.
What was the fate of Philip 's wife and child ? She is a woman,
he is a lad. They did not surely hang them. No, that would
have been mercy. The boy is the grandson, his mother the
daughter-in-law of good old Massasoit, the first and best friend
tbe English ever had in New England. Perhaps — perhaps, now
Philip is slain, and his warriors scattered to tbe four winds, they
will aUow bis wife and' son to go back — ^the widow and the
orphan — ^to finish their days and sorrows in their native wilder
ness. They are sold into slavery. West Indian slavery; an
Indian princess and her child, sold from the cool breezes of
Mount Hope, from tbe wild freedom of a New England forest,
to gasp under the lash, beneath the blazing sun of the tropics !
Bitter as death; aye, bitter as bell! Is there anything, — I do
ndt say in the range of humanity-^is there anything animated,
that would not struggle against this?"
"Ah ! happier they, who in the strife
For freedom fell, than, o 'er the main, ,
Those who in galling slavery's chain
StiU bore the load of hated life, —
Bowed to base tasks their generous pride.
And scourged and broken-hearted, died ! ' '
Several curious investigators, among them Ebenezer Hazard,
of Philadelphia, who died 1817, tried to ascertain the fate of the
boy, the son of Philip. Documents were discovered by Nahum
Mitchell that showed that the most devoted followers of Christ
among the Puritans discussed the question as to whether the
boy was to be put to death, and the matter was referred to tbat
celebrated and learned Puritan divine, John Cotton, and Rev.
Mr. Arnold, of Marshfirfd. (We wonder if this were afterward
the seat of New England's great prophet, priest and expounder
of the Constitution, Daniel Webster.)
Among other things in a very curious discussion of the
question by these learned divines, Sept. 7th, 1670, they say:
"Our answer is that we do acknowledge tbat rule, Deut. 24:16,
to be moral, and therefore perpetually binding, viz., that in a
P9,rticular act of wickedness, though capital, tbe crime of the
parent doth not render his child a subject to punishment by the

40 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
civil magistrate; yet, upon serious consideration, we humbly
conceive that the children of notorious traitors, rebels, and
murtherers, especially of such as have bin principal leaders and
actors in such horrid villanieg, and that against a whole nation,
yea the whole Israel of God, may be involved in the guilt of
their parents, and may, salva republica," (Latin almost as bad
as the logic) "be adjudged to death, as to us seems evident by
the scripture instances of Saul, Achan, Haman, the children of
whom were cut off, by the sword of Justice for the transgression
of their parents, although concerning some of those children, it
may be manifest, that they were not capable of being co-acters
therein. Signed: Samuel Arnold, John Cotton."
The Rev. Increase Mather, nephew of Cotton Mather, of
Boston, also took a hand in the discussion, six years after, that
is in 1676. "It is necessary tbat some effectual course should
be taken about him (Philip 's son) . He makes me think of Hadad,
who was a little child when his father (the Chief Sachem of
the Edomites) was killed by Joab; and, had not others fled
away with him, I am apt to think, that David would have taken
a course, that Hadad should never have proved a scourge to the
next generation." Tbat is, he was apt to think that DaVid
would have gently removed him from this world to tbe next.
In 1675, Major Waldron, a Commissioner, and Magistrate
for a portion of Massachusetts territory, issued general war
rants for seizing every Indian known to be manslayer, traitor
or conspirator. Under this unlimited order ship masters began
to kidnap every Indian along the coast. One vessel lurked along
the shores of Pemaquid kidnaping the natives, carried them to
foreign parts and sold them as slaves. Similar outrages were
committed farther east, as far down as Cape Sable, "who never
had been in the least manner guilty of any injury done to the
EngUsh. ' ' For this kidnaping and slave trade there is no record
that the offenders were punished.
After the death of King PhUip, 400 more of his warriors, who
were at perfect peace with the colonies, were arrested, sent to
Boston, seven or eight of them, who were kno-wn to have kUled
EngUshmen, were condemned and hanged; the rest were sold
into slavery in foreign parts.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 41
I will now give some extracts from Mr. Moore 's work on the
evidence of the existence of the commencement and continuance
of slavery in Massachusetts. It has already been shown that in
sixteen years after the Pilgrim Fathers landed on Plymouth
Rock they built their first ship and christened it "The Desire,"
which started out at once to the coast of Africa, and returned
with a cargo of slaves two years later; that, so far as I have
been able to ascertain, was the beginning of the slave trade by
the Puritans who had fled from England to enjoy personal
liberty and freedom of conscience.
We will skip now to the 18th century, slavery having con
tinued from that date, 1638, so far as Mr. Moore could discover,
until the first positive action forbidding it, the 13th Amend
ment to the Constitution of the United States, in 1866. I give
here a few disconnected extracts as valuable nuggets.
Judge Sewall referred to the "numerousness" of the slaves
in Massachusetts in 1700. Gov. Dudley's report to the Board of
Trade, in 1708, gave 400 as then in Boston, one-half of whom
were born there. This fact I mention because some very indis
creet descendants of these Puritan Fathers have maintained
that chUdren born in slavery in Massachusetts were free. In
1735 there were 2,600 negroes in Massachusetts. In 1742 there
were 1,514 in Boston alone. Mr. Moore says that it is a curious
fact that tbe first census in Massachusetts was a census of negro
slaves. In 1754 there were 4,489 ; in 1764 there were 5,779 ; in
1790 (by the United States census) 6,001.
In 1700 Massachusetts thought it advisable to legislate
against some of her citizens to prevent peonage of Indians. The
law of 1700 was enacted to protect tbe Indians against the exac
tions and oppressions which some of the English exercised
towards them "by drawing them to consent to covenant or bind
themselves or children apprentices or servants for an unreason
able term, on pretense of or to make satisfaction for some small
debt contracted or damage done by them." In 1725 a law was
enacted to prevent those citzens from kidnaping Indians. In
1703 a law was passed against the "manumission, discharge, or
setting free ' ' of mulatto or negro slaves. Security was required
against the contingency of these persons becoming a charge to
the to-wn, and none were to be accounted free for whom security

42 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
was not given ; but were to be the proper charge of their respec
tive masters or mistresses, "in case they stand in need of relief
and support, notwithstanding any manumission or instrument
of freedom to them made or given." The Puritans had been in
the habit of freeing their aged and infirm slaves to relieve them
selves of their support. To prevent this practice, the act was
passed. This act was i^till in force as late as June, 1807, when
it was reproduced in the revised laws and continued until a much
later period.
In 1703 a law was passed prohibiting Indians, Negroes or
Mulatto servants or slaves to be abroad after 9 o 'clock at night.
In 1705 a law was passed "for the better prevention of a
Spurious and Mixt Issue, etc." It also punishes any Negro
or Mulatto for "stricking a Christian," by whipping at the
discretion of the Justices before whom he may be convicted. It
also prohibits marriages of Christians with Negroes or Mulat-
toes^and imposes a penaltj'^ of £50 upon the persons joining
them in marriage. The citizens of Massachusetts seemed to have
reconsidered the justice of this law prohibiting negroes and
whites to marry, as such marriages were practiced almost daily
near the outborders. It seems that they had advanced to that
stage of civilization wherfe they left that question to be settled
by the moral sense of the parties who proposed to be joined in
wedlock; just as recently some members of tbe Methodist
Church, North, in Convention in Minnesota, moved to repeal the
church ordinance that forbids dancing, attending theaters, etc.,
and to leave it to the moral sense of the members of the church.
In Pennsylvania, where there were quite a number of
negroes, it seems that WilUam Penn proposed to his CouncU
that they do some legislating about the negroes, and a bill was
introduced in both Houses "for regulating Negroes in their
Morals and Marriages, etc.," which was twice read and rejected,
or, as they would have said in the Massachusetts General Court,
the biU "subsided." To one but sUghtly acquainted with the
morals of negroes it seems to have been a brave undertaking on
the part of the Pennsylvania law makers to regulate the morals
of negroes. It has been said times without number that at the North
during the existence of slavery there, mothers and children

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 43
were never parted. Mr. Moore says, page 57: "The breeding
of slaves was not regarded with favor. The owner of a valuable
female slave was to consider what all the risks of health and life
were to be, and whether the increase of stock would reimburse
the loss of service." Dr. Belknap says that "negro children
were considered an incumbrance in a family ; and when weaned,
were gi-ven away like puppies." (Mass. Historical Society Coll.,
1, TV, 200.) They were frequently publicly advertised "to be
given away. ' '
In 1786 tbe legislature of the State of Massachusetts passed
an "Act for the orderly Solemnization of Marriage," by the
seventh section whereof it was enacted ' ' that no person author
ized by this act to marry shall join in marriage any white person
with any Negro, Indian or Mulatto, under penalty of 50 £ ; and
all such marriages shall be absolutely null and void. ' ' The pro
hibition continued until 1843, when it was repealed by a special
"act relating to marriage between individuals of certain races."
It thus appears that Massachusetts, over twenty years before
negroes were freed, threw wide open tbe doors of her churches,
of her courts and magistrates, to negroes and whites to tee
joined in tbe holy bonds of matrimony.
,In 1727 — Mr. Drake says — "the traffic in slaves appears to
have been more of an object in Boston than at any other period
before or since. ' ' In the following year an act was passed more
effectually to secure the duty on tbe importation of negroes, and
more stringent regulations were made to prevent smuggling of
slaves in the pro-vince to avoid paying the duty, and the dra-w-
back was allowed on all negroes dying within twelve months.
Another act prohibited negro slaves to entertain any servants
of their o-wn color in their houses, without permission of the
respective masters or mistresses.
In 1718 all Indian, Negro, and Mulatto servants for life were
estimated as other Personal Estate — ^viz.. Each male servant for
life above fourteen years of age, at 15£ value; each female
servant for life, above fourteen years of age, at 10 * value. Mr.
Moore adds (page 65) : "And thus they continued to be rated
witb horses, oxen, cows, sheep and swine, until after the com
mencement of the War of the Revolution." On the same page,
Mr. Moore says "the Gninea Trade, as it was called then, since

44 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
knovra and branded by all civUized nations as piracy, whose
beginnings we have noticed, continued to flourish under the
auspices of Massachusetts merchants dovm through tbe entire
colonial period, and long after tbe boasted Declaration of Rights
in 1780 had terminated ( ?) tbe legal existence of slavery within
the limits of that State. ' ' He then gives a copy of the letter of
instructions dated Nov. 12th, 1785, to a Captain of a brig by
the o-wners, who were about to send the Captain to the coast of
Africa for a cargo of Negro slaves.

CHAPTER Vin.
SLAVERY IN MASSACHUSETTS.
(Continued)
Before the war of 1861 the press of the North was full of
caricatures of the sale of negroes in the South on the block;
they would describe how the auctioneer would tell the negro
to open his mouth to see if his teeth were sound, show bis limbs,
turn him around and display his good qualities. I make a short
quotation from tbe instructions given by the owners of the
Captain of the brig mentioned in the preceding chapter : ' ' Our
orders are, tbat you embrace the first fair wind and make the
best of your way to the coast of Africa, and there invest your
cargo in slaves. As slaves, like other articles, when brought to
market generally appear to the best advantage ; therefore, too
critical an inspection can not be paid to them before purchase ;
to see that no dangerous distemper is lurking about them, to
attend particularly to their age, to their countenance, to the
straightness of their limbs, and, as far as possible to the good
ness or badness of their constitution, etc., etc., will be very
considerable objects."
The slaves purchased in Africa were chiefly sold in the
West Indies, or the Southern colonies; but when these mar
kets were glutted, and the price low, some of them were
brought to Massachusetts. In 1795 Dr. Belknap could remember
two or three entire cargoes, and the Doctor himself remembered
some, between 1755 and 1765, which consisted almost wholly
of children. Sometimes the vessels of tbe neighboring colony of
Rhode Island, after having sold their prime slaves in the West
Indies, brought the remnants of their cargoes to Boston for sale.
Page 69. It has been asserted that in Massachusetts, not
only were the miseries of slavery mitigated, but some of its worst
features were wholly unkno-wn. But tbe record does not bear out
the suggestion ; and the traditions of one town at least preserved
the memory of the most brutal and barbarous of all, "raising
slaves for the market."

46 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

Page 70. Mr. Moore gives an advertisement bearing on the
subject of non-separation of mother and child. "For Sale, a
likely negro woman about 19 years and a child of about 6 months ^
of age to be sold together or apart."
Mr. Moore quotes on page 71 from Fronde's History of Eng
land, Volume VIII., page 480 : "It would be to misread history
and to forget the change of times, to see in the fathers of New
England mere commonplace slavemongers ; to themselves they
appeared as the elect to whom God had given the heathen for an
inheritance ; they were men of stern intellect and fanatical faith,
who, believing themselves the favorites of Providence, imitated
the example and assumed the privileges of the chosen people,
and for their wildest and worst acts they could claim the sanc
tion of reUgious conviction. In seizing and enslaving Indians,
and trading for Negroes, they were but entering into possession
of the heritage of the saints ; and New England had to outgrow
the theology of the Elizabethan Calvinists before it could under
stand that the Father of Heaven respected neither person nor
color, and tbat His arbitrary favor — if more than a dream of
divines — ^was confined to spiritual privileges."
No servant, either man or maid, was permitted ' ' to give, sell
or truck any commodity whatsoever without license from their
masters, during the time of their service, imder pain of fine,
or corporal punishment, at the discretion of the Court, as the
offence shall deserve."
Page 105. Mr. Moore says : "The Puritans appear to have
been neither shocked nor perplexed witb the institution, for
which they made ample provision in their earliest code. They
were familiar with the Greek and Roman ideas on the subject,
and added the conviction that slavery was established by the
law of God, and that Christianity always recognized it as the
antecedent Mosaic practice. On these foundations, is it stra,nge
that it held its place so long in tbe history of Massachusetts ? "
In 1767, James Otis, perhaps the greatest of all tbe sons
of Massachusetts (Webster being born in New Hampshire) de
livered an address called "A Protest Against Negro Slavery,"
which, for a time, shook the moral world in Massachusetts as
an earthquake shakes the natural world. John Adams heard
the words of Otis, and "shuddered at tbe doctrine be taught,"

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 47
and to the end of his long life continued 'to shudder at the
consequences that may* be drawn from such premises." The
views expressed by Otis must have sounded strangely in the
ears of men who lived (as John Adams himself says he did)
"for many years in times when the practice (of slavery) was
not disgraceful, when the best men in my vicinity thought it
not inconsistent with their character. ' ' If there was a prevailing
public sentiment against slavery in Massachusetts — as has been
constantly claimed of late — the people of that day, far less
demonstrative than their descendants, had an extraordinary
way of not showing it. More than a century passed away before
all the ancient badges of servitude could be removed from the
colored races in Massachusetts, if indeed it be even now true
that none of these disabilities which so strongly mark the social
status of the negro still linger in the legislation of that State.
I wiU now present some efforts of legislation in Massachu
setts to abolish slavery in tbat State, and it will be noticed that
these efforts did not begin until the Puritans had occupation of
Massachusetts for 150 years. The first indication of life in the
consciences of Puritans on the subject of slavery that I have
been able to find occurred in the little to-wn of Worcester, which
in 1765 instructed its representative in the General Court to
"use bis influence to obtain a law to put an end to that un
christian and impolitic practice of making slaves of the human
species," and that "be give his vote for none to serve in His
Majesty's Council who will use their influence against such a
law. ' ' This appears in a Boston News-Letter. In the same year
Boston took a band in the game "for the total abolition of
slavery among us" and to prohibit the importation and the
purchasing of slaves for the future. In 1767, at a town-meeting,
the same course was taken to instruct the representatives.
In 1767 the flrst movement was made in the legislature to
procure tbe passage of an Act against slavery and the slave-
trade. Introduced on the 13th of March. It was read a first
time, and the question was moved whether a second reading be
referred to tbe next session of the General Court, whieh was
passed' in tbe negative. Then it was moved that a clause be
brought into the bill for a limitation to a certain time, and the
question being put it was passed in the affirmative ; and it was

48 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
further ordered that the biU be read again on the foUowing day'
at ten o'clock. On the 14th the questipn was put whether the
third reading be referred to the next May session. This passed
in the negative, and it was ordered that the Bill be read a
third time "on Monday next at three o'clock."
On the 16th the Bill came up and after a debate it was
ordered that the matter "subside." (Tbat was the Puritan's
soft, euphemistic substitute for the word "lost" or "killed.")
But a committee of three was appointed to bring in another
BiU for laying a duty of import on slaves imported into the
Province. On tbe 17th that BiU came up. (This was a substitute,
it -will be observed, for the abolition of slavery in the Colony.)
This bill was read a first and second time, and ordered for a
third reading on the next day at 11 o 'clock.
On the 18th the question was put whether the enacting of
this Bill should be referred to the next May session, "that the
mind of the country may be known thereupon." (A qualified
form of our present day referendum.) This passed in the nega
tive. Then another cautious legislator moved whether a clause
should be brought in to limit the continuance of the Act for the
term of one year. Passed in the affirmative and ordered that
the bill be recommitted. Tbe committee reported tbe bill to
Council on the 19th of March. On tbe 20tb it was read a second
time and passed to be engrossed, and sent do-wn to the House
of Representatives for concurrence. The members read it and
unanimously non-concurred.
And thus the bill disappeared and was lost, tbat is to say
it "subsided." Mr. Moore says : "It was the nearest approach
to an attempt to abolish slaverj^, within our knowledge, in all
the Colonial and Provincial legislation of Massachusetts. ' ' How
bravely the determination to abolish that vile crime of slavery
took the field in 1767, and after going through an experience
with the legislators, who were instructed to abolish slavery,' it
came out so battered and hacked that its friends could not
recognize it, it being a bill for laying an import on the impor
tation of negroes and other slaves.
In 1771 tbe subject of the slave trade came up again in the
legislature of Massachusetts, and a bill to prevent the importa
tion from Africa was read tbe first time, the next day it was

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 49
read a second time and postponed to tbe following Tuesday, and
on that day tbe bill was recommitted.
On the 19th another bill to prevent the importation of negro
slaves in the Province was read the first time. On the 20th it
was read a second time and ordered to be read again "on
Monday next, at three o 'clock. ' ' On the 22nd it was read tbe
third time, and passed to be engrossed. On tbe 24th it was
read and passed to be enacted. It was then sent up to the
Council for concurrence. The Council proposed an amendment,
whieh was passed, and sent back to the House ; the House con
sidered the amendment, concurred with the Honorable Board
therein, and sent the biU up to tbe Honorable Board. It ap
peared that this bill was vetoed by Gov. Hutchinson.
In 1773 an attempt to discourage the slave trade was
renewed. It -wiU be noted that the efforts to abolish it had
dropped out of view. This bill was to prevent the importa
tion of negroes into Massachusetts. The constituents in in
structing their representatives to prevent the slave-trade in
Massachusetts suggested two ways. First, by laying a heavy
duty on every negro imported or brought from Africa or else-
iwhere into tbat Province, or by making a law that every negro
brought or imported aforesaid should be a free man or woman
as soon as they come within the jurisdiction of it, and tbat
every negro child that should be born after enacting such law
sboiUd be free at the same age as tbe children of white people
are. This discloses further evidence on the question as to
whether children born of negro slaves in Masachusetts were free.
If they were there was no necessity for tbe legislature to enact
that they should be free at the age of twenty-one.
Other representatives were instructed on the same line.
In 1774 a bill to prevent the importation of negroes and
other slaves into this Province was introduced, read, and
ordered to be read again the next day. The next day, in the
afternoon, the third reading took place, and the bill was passed
to be engrossed, when it was sent up to the Council Board for
concurrence. On the 4th of March the bill was returned as
"passed in Council witb Amendments." On the 5tb the House
voted to concur witb tbe Council, and on the 7th passed the
bill to be enacted. On the 8tb it received the final sanction of

50 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

tbe CouncU, and only required the approval of the Governor to
become a law. Mr. Moore remarks, "That approval, however,
it faUed to obtain; the only reason given in tbe record being
that 'the Secretary said (on returning the approved bills) that
His Excellency had not had time to consider the other BiUs that
had been laid before him,' and so the bill 'subsided.' "
Such was the response of the Great and General Court of
Massachusetts to tbe petition of her negro slaves in 1773-74.
They prayed that they might be liberated from bondage and
made freemen of the community, and that this Court would give
and grant to them some part of the unimproved lands belong
ing to the Province for a settlement, or reUeve them "in such
other way as shall seem good and wise." Not one of their
prayers was answered.
In the first Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, October
25, 1774, Mr. Wheeler brought into Congress a letter directed
to Doc. Appleton, in effect as follows: "Tbat while we are
attempting to free ourselves from our present embarrassments,
and preserve ourselves from slavery, that we also take into con
sideration the state and circumstances of the negro slaves in this
Province." The same was read, and it was moved that a Com
mittee be appointed to take it into consideration. After some
debate thereon, tbe question was put, "whether the matter now
subside, ' ' and it passed in the affirmative. A resolution passed
by the Committee of Safety (Hancock and Warren) in 1775,
protested against any slaves being admitted into tbe army upon
any consideration vvhatever. It was introduced in the Pro-vincial
Congress and Mr. Moore remarks "It was probably allowed to
' subside ' like the former proposition. ' ' The prohibition against
the admission of slaves into the Massacbuisetts Army clearly
recognizes slavery as an existing institution.
Deacon Benjamin Colman, of Newbury, Massachusetts, in
1774, says: "And this iniquity is established by law in this
province. ' ' The same learned Deacon, in a letter addressed to
the General Court, says: "Was Boston the first port on this
Continent that began the slave-trade, and are they not tbe first
shut up by an oppressive act, and brought almost to desolation,
wherefore, Sir, though we may not be peremptory in applying
the judgments of God, yet I can not pass over such providence

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE- SOUTH 51
without a remark." Tbe oppressive act that shut up and
brought Boston almost to desolation was nothing but the
Embargo Acts made by Congress for tbe benefit of all the
people. In 1776 two negro men captured on the high seas were
advertised for sale at auction in Boston as a part of the cargo
and appurtenances of a prize duly condemned in the Maritime
Court. This awakened Massachusetts again to a small spasm
on slavery, so on September 13th, 1776, it was resolved that a
committee be appointed to look into it. A little more than a
month after, on October 19th, three members were appointed
a committee to consider the condition of the African slaves in
Massachusetts. This resolution was concurred in by the Council
and a committee was appointed. Mr. Moore says: "We have
made a diUgent search for further action under this resolution
and appointment of tbe committee, but have failed to discover
any trace of it. ' ' Tbe matter was probably ' ' allowed to subside ' '
again. On the same day tbe House passed a resolution "to
prevent the sale of two negro men lately brought into this
State and ordered to be sold at Salem." It was read and con
curred in by Coimcil, Sept. 14th, 1776. In the House of Repre
sentatives read and non-concurred and sent up for concurrence.
In the CouncU read and concurred in and sent down for con
currence. In the House of Representatives read and concurred.

CHAPTER IX.
ADAMS ON THE PURITANS.
I am far from claiming that I have read all or even a large
part of the declamations at convivial gatherings, or most of the
histories and fugitive articles relating to the Puritans. I do
not believe any person has ever read one fiftieth of them, not
even one preparing to write such a history. It has been
asserted on reliable authority that the most widely read book
is the Bible, and second to it. The Pilgrim's Progress. Reading
places third in the list writings of different kinds and speeches
of all kinds exploiting the Puritans. One author is credited -with
882 books, pamphlets and sermons on this subject. In all I have
read I have not found one fair account of the crimes committed
by the Puritans in the name of Christ and for the glory of His
kingdom on earth. The panegyrists, by one consent, have been
playing the game of literary thiinble-rigging for three centuries.
Lookers-on have denounced the trick ; some have written it
up, but the children who have inherited the ancestral strain, for
their o-wn reputations still try to hide the sin by extolling the
imaginary virtues of their ancestors.
Not until near the end of the last century was there a break
,in this devoted filial line of defenders. Not before did even
one rise up and "turn State's evidence" and tell tbe truth. As
St. Paul declared himself to be a Hebrew of the Hebrews, one
of the strictest sect, so this witness states in his -written testi
mony that he is a Puritan of tbe Puritans — one descended in
the direct line from Cotton Mather, the most distinguished priest ,
of this tribe of Levi, and from Thomas Shepard, another
preacher of fame in and for his day. This witness is as dis-
tiijguished for learning as was Cotton Mather in his generation,
and is, in intellect and judgment, tbe superior of any Puritan
of whom we have any authentic account. As Milton says of
Abdiel be is "faithful among tbe faithless — faithful only be."
This honorable Puritan is Charles Francis Adams of Boston,
Massachusetts. Having decided to deliver a few lectures to the

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 53
students of Harvard University, he chose the story of the Pil
grim Fathers. He began to rummage "over many a quaint and
curious volume of forgotten lore," and the further he roamed —
the deeper he delved — tbe more he grew amazed. His own
words are best. He told the students.
He delivered four lectures which are now in book form with
the title "Massachusetts, Its History and Its Historians,"
"Apples of Gold in a Picture of Silver." But there is one fly
in this precious ointment; still it does not vitiate the beaUng
virtue of the ointment. It bears neither microbes nor bacteria,
and indeed, on inspection tbat need not be close, it is discovered
to be like the fisherman's fly — only a decoy for suckers. I quote
his words tbat the decoy may be apparent.
"For the present it is sufficient to say, 'Do men gather grapes
of thorns, or figs of thistles ? Even so, every good tree bringeth
forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.' Can it, be
possible tbat we are indebted for all that is good in our Federal
and State Constitutions; for freedom of speech, of conscience,
of separation of Church and State, and other liberal provisions
too numerous to recapitulate here, to a people who unanimously
established a theocrary for their government j -who enslaved
their fellow-man; who decided private causes by quoting the
law of the cases from a sentence in Joshua or Judges, or the
Proverbs, who bung men and women because they exercised
freedom of conscience and did many other abominations just
as cruel and fiendish? But, as I have said, enough of this at
present. I shall take this up at another time. Suffice it to say,
that something must be conceded to a son who, moved by
noblesse oblige, volunteers to tell the truth on his ancestors,
and claims, in conclusion, some good, some virtue for them,
although the claim is overwhelmingly refuted by every Journal
of every convention that framed the Constitution of each of tbe
Southern States and of the United States. ' '
I conclude this chapter with some pages from Mr. Adams's
lectures, as follows:
. MASSACHUSETTS INTOLERANCE.
" 'As the twig is bent, the tree inclines.' Tbe Massachusetts
twig was here and there bent ; and, as it was bent, it, during

54 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
hard upon two centuries, inclined. The question of Religious
Toleration was, so far as Massachusetts could decide it, decided
in 1637 in the negative. On that issue Massachusetts then
definitely and finally renounced all claim or desire to head the
advancing column or even to be near the bead of the coluinn;
it did not go to the rear, but it went well towards it, and there
it remained until the issue was decided. But it is curious to
note from that day to this how the exponents of Massachusetts
polity and thought, whether religious or historical, have, so to
speak, -wriggled and squirmed in the presence of the record.
'Shuffling,' as George Bishop, the Quaker -writer, expressed
it in 1703, 'and endeavoring to Evade the Guilt of it, being
ashamed to own it ; so that they seldom mention to any purpose,
even in their histories.' They did so in 1637, when they were
making the record up; they have done so ever since. There
was almost no form of sophistry to which the founders of Massa
chusetts did not have recourse then, — ^for they sinned against
light, though they deceived themselves while sinning ; and there
is almost no form of sophistry to which tbe historians of Massa
chusetts have not had recourse since, — ^really deceiving them
selves in their attempt to deceive others. And it is to this
aspect of the case — what may perhaps be not unfitly described
as the filio-pietistic historical aspect of it — that I propose to
address myself. For in the study of history there should be
but one law for all. Patriotism, piety and filial duty have noth
ing to do with it ; they are, inded mere snares and sources of
delusion. The rules and canons of criticism applied in one case
and to one character must be sternly and scrupulously applied
in all other similar cases and to all other characters ; and, while
surrounding circumstances should, and, indeed, must be taken
into careful consideration, they must be taken into equal con
sideration, no matter who is concerned. Patriotism, in the
study of history, is but another name for provincialism.
"On its face, the Massachusetts record from November, 1637,
when those of the faction which followed Anne Hutchinson
were disarmed, disfranchised and exiled, dovra through the
Baptist and Quaker persecutions to the culmination of the
¦witchcraft craze at the close of the seventeenth century, does
not seem to admit of evasion. The first decision, and the policy

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 55
subsequently pursued in accordance with it, were distinct, au
thoritative and final, — against Religious Toleration. The policy
assumed definite form after the political defeat of Vane in May,
1637. The subsequent banishment of John 'Wheelwright aiid
Anne Hutchinson, together with the body of their active adher
ents, was, as a proceeding, indisputably inquisitorial and extra
judicial. Tbe offence, as well as tbe policy to be pursued by the
government, was explicitly and unmistakably set forth by the
chief executive and the presiding official at the trial of Mrs.
Hutchinson, when Governor WinthrOp said to her, — 'Your
course is not to be suffered ; * * * we see not that any
should have authority to set up any other exercises besides what
authority bath already set up.' Note here again the words 'set
up any other exercises. ' Then it was maintained, and it has since
been maintained, that the persecution in this case was 'not for
opinion's sake,' that the magistrates did not 'challenge power
over men's consciences,' that tbe government never claimed any
power over men's private opinions;' and, indeed only tbe Inqui
sition, as tbe Holy Office o^ Catholicism, has gone to this length.
But where was the right so distinctly set forth in tbe edict of
Galerius, and which is of tbe essence of Religious Toleration, —
the right 'freely to profess private opinions' and to 'assemble
in conventicles -without fear of molestation?' The privilege of
holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them, is of
limited value, and one a denial of which it is difficult to enforce.
"But Winthrop 's words apeak for themselves; and in the
subsequent history of Massachusetts the policy set forth in them
was maintained and rigorously enforced by frequent infliction
of tbe penalties of banishment and death! The public senti
ment behind the policy, and which insured its enforcement,
expressed itself in many forms. Now it was in the well known
verses found in Governor Dudley's pocket after his death; —
'Let men of God in .courts and. churches watch
0 'er such as do a toleration hatch.
Lest tbat ill egg bring forth a cockatrice
To poison all with heresie and vice.'
Again, in 1647, while the battle for Toleration was waxing
hot in England, the Simple Cobbler of Aggawam in America

56 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
thus delivered himself: 'My heart hath naturally detested
foure things: * * * Tolerations of divers Religions, or of
one Religion in segregant shape: He that willingly assents
to the last, if be examines his heart by day-light, his con
science vrill tell bim, he is either an Atheist, or an Heretique,
or an Hypocrite, or at best a captive to some lust : Poly-piety
is 1;he greatest impiety in the world. * * * It is said that
Men ought to have Liberty of their Conscience, and that it is
persecution to debarre them of it : I can rather stand amazed
than reply to this: It is an astonishment to think tbat the
brains of men should be parboyl'd in such impious ignorance.'
"More than thirty years after the Rev. Nathaniel Ward
thus expressed himself, the Rev. William Hubbard, the first his
torian of Massachusetts, a man of whom it was said he was
'equal to any of bis contemporaries in learning and candor,
and superior to all as a writer,' preached tbe Election Sermon
(1676) at the inauguration of Governor Leverett. In it he
said, — '1 shall not entertain you -with any sharp invective, or
declaiming against a boundless toleration of all Religions, lest
it should be an insinuation that some here present are inclined
that way, whieh I believe there was never any occasion given
to suspect. * * '* Such opinions in Doctrine, or professions
and practices in Religion, as are attended witb any foul prac
tical evils, as most heresies have been, ought to be prohibited
by public Authority, and tbe broachers or fomenters of them
punished by penal laws, according to the nature of tbe offence,
like other fruits of the flesh." * * *
"Let me now put on the stand two ministers of the church
of Cambridge here, Urian Oakes, afterwards President of the
CoUege, and Thomas Shepard, second of the name. In his
Election Sermon delivered in 1673, Urian Oakes said,— "I
profess I am heartily for aU due moderation. Nevertheless I
must add, that I look upon an unbounded toleration as the first
born of all abominations;' whUe the year before Thomas Shep
ard had declared,— 'To tolerate aU things, and to tolerate
nothing (its an old and true maxim), both are intolerable. * * *
Yet I would hope none of the Lord's husbandmen will be so
foolish as to Sow Tares, or plead for the Saving of them, I
mean in the way of Toleration aforesaid, when as it may be

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 57
prevented : the light of Nature and right Reason would cry out
against such a thing.' So much for Thomas Shepard the son;
but I come now to Thomas Shepard the father, first pastor of
the Cambridge church. Thomas Shepard is handed dovra to us
by tradition as a divine of gentle character ;^-pronouneed
shortly after his death 'a silver trumpet' of the faith; Cotton
Mather also declared that 'his daily conversation vs^as a
trembling walk with God.' Tbe mind of this man would nat
urally incline to toleration ; — ^he surely on this issue should have
been in tbe advance of bis contemporaries. Yet in his New
England Lamentations for Old England's Errors, printed in
London in 1645, he expressed himself thus : — ' To cut off the hand
of the Magistrate from touching men for their consciences will
certainly in time (if it get ground) be tbe utter overthrow, as it
is the undermining, of the Reformation begun. This opinion
is but one of tbe fortresses and strongholds of Satan, to keep
his head from cnisbing by Christ 's beele, who (forsooth) because
he is krept into men's consciences, and because conscience is a
tender thing, no man must here meddle with him, as if con
sciences were made to be the safeguard of sin and error, and o:^
Satan himself, if once they can creep into them. '
"I have cited Urian Oakes, President of Harvard College
from 1675 to 1681. He was succeeded by Increase Mather, who
was President from 1685 to 1701 ; and in 1685 Increase Mather
thus deUvered himself on the subject of religious liberty : ' More
over, sinful Toleration is an evil of exceeding dangerous con
sequence; Men of Corrupt minds, though they may plead for
Toleration, and Cry up Liberty of Conscience, etc., yet if once
they should become numerous and get power into their hands,
none would persecute more than they. * * * And indeed
the Toleration of all Religion and Perswasions, is the way to
have no true Religion at all left. * * * I do believe that
Antichrist bath not at this day a more probable way to advance
his Kingdom of Darkness, than by a Toleration of all Religions
and Perswasions. '
"But it is useless to multiply citations wbere all are to the
same effect. If in tbe somewhat arid as well as meagre record
of Massachusetts seventeenth-century utterances there are any
which, subsequent to 1637, favor reUgious toleration, or breathe

58

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

the spirit of toleration, I am not famiUar with them, and would
much like to have my attention caUed to them. For, in dealing
with such a subject and making general statements in regard
to it, the tendency always is to an appearance at least of exag
geration. It is attack and defence ; not a holding of equal scales.
So in this connection I can only say that, while my investigations
in the field referred to have brought to light many expressions
on the subject of toleration such as those I have quoted, I fail
to remember any of an opposite character. The record is
sufficiently fuU; but it is aU one way. And, in the fuU light ol
tbat record, judicially examined and compared with the records
of other lands during the same epoch, it is difficult to detect
any flaw in the foUowing indictment by George Bishop in his
'New-England Judged.' 'For, this let me say, That tho' more
Blood hath been shed, and with greater Executions, and in some
sense more cruel, by those who have not pretended to Religion;
at least to Liberty of Conscience, from whom no other thing
could be expected; ¦ * * * yet, from Men pretending to
Religion and Conscience; who suffered for Religion and their
Conscience; who left their Native Counti?y, Friends and Rela
tives, to dwell in a Wilderness for to enjoy their Conscience
and Religion; from Professors, who have made so much ado
about Religipn, and for their Conscience, and set themselves
up as the Height of all Profession of Religion, and the most
Zealous Assertors of Liberty of Conscience ; and for that Cause
have expected to be had in regard, viz. : because of Conscience
and Religion, for Men * * * thus to Exceed all Bounds and
Limits of Moderation, Law, Humanity and Justice, upon a
People, barely for their Conscience, and the Exercise of their
Religion * * * and for you to do it, who yourselves are
the Men (not another Generation) which so fled, which so suf
fered, is beyond a Parallel. '
' ' The question now arises, — ^Wherein did they differ in this
respect from those of the established churches of the Old World
against whose persecutions they so loudly and so properly bore
witness ?
"But the difficulty with this portion of the early record of
Massachusetts — that of tbe Founders and those prior, we will.
say, to 1660 — is not merely tbat it is all one way ; but, unhappily.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 59
in addition to breathing a strong spirit of intolerance, there
runs through it a vein of apology and sophistical excuse, or
impUed denial, which shows that the fathers of Massachusetts
in saying and doing what they did say and do faded to act.
wholly according to their light. In other words, they knew
better. They once had been subjected td persecution, — they
were themselves tbe victims of religious intolerance; and, as
is usual with those so situated, they had in that school made
rapid advance in the lessons of toleration. Now they were in
power and authority ; and, being so, they proved themselves no
less intolerant than those from whose intolerance they had fled.
They were not unaware of the fact. Conscience troubled them
as those who suffered from their intolerance wrote down words
like these : 'But that which most of al} may be the Astonishment
and Destination of Mankind is. That (the Spirit of Persecution,
Cruelty and Malice) should predominate in those who had
Loudly Cried out of the Tyranny and Oppression of the Bishops
in Old England and from whom they fled ; but when they settled
in a place, where they had liberty to Govern, made their little
Finger of Cruelty bigger than ever they found the Loins of the
Bishops.' "Throughout the first half of tbe eighteenth century Massa
chusetts was an" arena of theological conflict ; and though a
modified form of toleration was in 1780 grudgingly admitted
into the first constitution of the State, it was not until 1833,. —
when the third century of its history was already entered upon,
that complete Uberty of conscience was made part of the funda
mental law. The battle of Religious Toleration had then been
elsewhere fought and won ; Massachusetts reluctantly accepted
the result. So far from wuming laurels in that struggle, her
record in it is in degree only less discreditable than that of
Spain. "The trouble with the historical writers who have taken the
task upon themselves is that they have tried to sophisticate
away the facts. In so doing they have of necessity had recourse
to' lines of argument which they would not for an instant accept
in defense or extenuation of those who in the Old World pursued
tbe policy witb which they find themselves confronted in tbe
early record of the New. But there that record is ; and it will not

60 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
out. Roger Williams, John Wheelwright and Anne Hutchinson
come back from their banishment, and stand there as witnesses;
the Quakers and Baptists, witb eyes that forever glare, swing
from the gallows or turn at the cart 's tail. Tn Spain it was the
dungeon, the rack and the fagot ; in Massachusetts it was banish
ment, the whip and the gibbet. Tn neither case can tbe records
be obliterated. Between them it is only a question of degree, —
one may in color be a dark drab, while the other is unmistakably
a jetty black. The difficulty is witb those who, while expatiating
with great force of language on the sooty aspect of the one,
turn and twist the other in the light, and then solemnly assev
erate its resemblance to driven snow. Unfortunately for those
who advocate this view of the respective Old and New World
records, the facts do not justify it. On tbe contrary, while
the course in the matter of persecution pursued by those in
authority in the Old World was logical and does admit of
defence, the course pursued by the founders of Massachu
setts was illogical, and does not admit of more than partial
extenuation. "The man who has suffered from those in authority for
opinion's sake must not, when in his turn clothed with authority,
inflict for opinion's sake suffering on others; and, i£ he does
so, he and his posterity must accept tbe consequences. What
greater hypocrisy than for those who were oppressed by the
bishops to become the greatest oppressors themselves, so soon
as their yoke was removed; and the sophistry to whicK the
representative Massachusetts divines had recourse in reply was
no less sophistry then and to them, than it is to us now. On the
pleadings they stand convicted. So much for the early clergy.
As to the magistrates, in the mouths of James I. and Charles I.,
— of Philip IT. of Spain or Louis XIV. of France, the words—
'We see not that any should have authority to set up any other
exercises besides what authority bad already set up,' — these
words in those mouths would have had a familiar as well as
an ominous sound. To certain of those who Ustened to them,
they must have had a sound no less ominous when uttered by
Governor John Winthrop in the Cambridge meeting-house on
the 17th of November, 1637. John Winthrop, John Endicott
and Thomas Dudley were all English Puritans. As such they

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 61
bad sought refuge, from authority, in Massachusetts. On what
ground can the ' impartial historian withhold from them the
judgment he visits on James and Philip and Charles and Louis ?
The fact would seem to be that tbe position of tbe latter was
logical though cruel ; while tbe position of the former was cruel
and iUogical."

CHAPTER X.
THE SITUATION IN 1860-61.
I will now give the social and political situation in the
States called the United States in 1860-61. To do this it wiU
not be necessary to track the Puritans in England before they
first took flight to HoUand, nor to notice much of their devious
conduct whUe sojourning there. 'What they did in HoUand
has no direct bearing on tbe issue between the North and the
South, but tbe animus that controUed them in some of their
deliberate .actions for two hundred and fifty years, and en
tered into their treatment of the people of the South, must
be noticed. One transaction illustrates this animus. It was
the petition in which Brewster and Robinson, two of their
greatest and most pious leaders, lied to King James by saying
in plain words they subscribed fully to the Faith of the Estab
lished Church — from which they fled to HoUand and which
Faith they kicked. into the fire as soon las they landed at Ply
mouth. Nor would I but for the animus stir the malodorous
horrors that fill their
"Pleasant vaUey of Hinnom. Tophet them
And black Gehenna called — ^the type of bell,"
wherein the sainted Puritan priests of Moloch sacrificed on
the gallows with impartial band captured Indian warriors;
Indians not captured ; old women, their neighbors and of their
o-wn blood and faith; children (girls) of their o-wb blood, too
young to understand religious faith, but old enough, said
the Puritan priests, to be midnight associates of and revelers
witb tbe De-vil, riding old women in the air, and to learn bow
to become adepts in all the deadly magic of witchcraft ; Quak
ers who made noisy demonstration, whereas the Puritans' in
sanity on religion made them sullen, silent, and brut&l, and
as the two — ^the boisterous and silent — could not worship ac
ceptably to the Puritans' confidential God together, the Quak-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 68

ers were hanged to make them keep sUent. These few pastimes
of the Puritans are mentioned that the reader may have just
here a glimpse at the nature of the people the Southern
States entered into partnership with in 1787. No argument
is needed to show their lamentable deficiencies, their insanity
on religion, their avarice, their readiness to force every obstacle
out of their way, whether animate or inanimate, mental as con
victions, or spiritual as religion; whether professions of love,
of personal Uberty, or of friendship and personal honor; aU
of which, and more to be told hereafter, had to go dovra be
fore that one insatiable craving — avarice!
This chapter is -written to demonstrate, not to tbe Puritans
nor their allies in tbe Abolition War — ^whether they be the
serfs they raked from the expanse of Europe, or their three
hundred thousand stolen negro-slaves and leompatriots, or the
foreigners already on, the soil, who, knowing nothing of per
sonal liberty at home, nor of the nature of tbe government
whose blessings they had come here to enjoy, were inveigled
into the ranks of war by false cries of ' ' Rebellion ! " " Treason !"
"Save the Union!" sugared by big bounties and seventeen
doUars and fifty cents a month — ^no, not to them, but to .demon
strate to that vast body of statesmen whose seats are bigh, as
they overlook the ruling nations of the earth and, by Wisdoin
and Justice, keep the world in balance, and whose great ances
tors, starting -with one fundamental principle — "the rights of
man in the state of Nature" — and making it the comer-stone,
pillar after pUlar, pedestal, column, pilaster, architrave and
dome, so expansive and secure that under it aU nations of the
earth that do justice and love mercy, are asesmbled, and where
the least among them is as great as the greatest. These are the
rulers — the noblemen who, wben they enter into , a solemn
covenant to the good faith of which they "pledge their lives,
their fortunes and sacred honor," abide by it forever; who,
when they covenant that anything alive or dead is property,
never, by slipping in like negroes to a henroost, violate their
oaths by stealing it; who, when they enter into a covenant,
never plead a century after, as an excuse for breaking it, that
they found a "Higher Law;" who, wben confronted -with a
covenant entered into by their fathers but a generation past,

64 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
do not dishonor their fathers who died to bequeath to their
sons freedom and wealth, by charging them as fools and
knaves for entering into a compact that is "a covenant with
Death and an agreement with HeU" and then making war
on the other party to that covenant .and, after applauding
their fathers for denouncing King George III for employing
Indians to butcher them, stealing negro slaves they sold to
Southern masters and enlisting two hundred thousand in their
army to murder their masters and families.
I said in the first chapter I was not writing this book to
convince the Puritans; that I care nothing for their opinion.
I am writing to reach the statesmen referred to above ; and yet
not so much for them as for the youth of the Southern States,
that they may know the truth and do honor to their fathers
who were in the right in every dispute with the North from
1790 to this date. This I declare not in a spirit of boasting,
for, should I ever descend to that grade, I shall look for some
cause much more creditable than being in the right in any
controversy with Puritan fanatics. I would not do so if I
did not have the proof to make good the assertion.
After the thirteen States had won their freedom and each,
by name, had been acknowledged by Great Britain to be "Free
and Independent," for reasons needless to be repeated in this
connection they saw tbe necessity for uniting and acting
together for their "common defense and general welfare."
They agreed to create a common agent to represent them
abroad in all matters international, and at home in the exclus
ive exercise of a few of the powers common to each State. But
several obstacles at home were in their way. One was negro
slavery in nearly aU the States ; another was the conflictinu i»^
terests of the commercial and the agricultural States — ^there
heing about half in each group.
During 150 years tbe Puritans, all settled in New England,
bad been rivals of Spaniards, Portuguese and English in the
African slave trade. Massajchusetts was the queen Tjee in the
New England hive, engaged in gathering this honey in Africa.
She built the first American slave ship in 1636 and received
the first cargo of negro slaves in 1638. Tbe profits of the
trade were irresistibly seductive to the avarice of the Puritan.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 66
It overcame and subdued bis virtne that had paraded through
England and Holland proclaiming personal liberty and equal
rights for all men. Wben Avarice bad brushed off the veneer
(stripped off that mask of the hypocrite and he was opeiUy
exposed) , he decided not to wear the shame without deserving
the blame, and he fell to building slave ships as a business.
This progressed until at one period tbe little village of New
port was the haven for 150 slave-trade vessels. Every colony
was stocked witb negro slaves. From Delaware to Georgia
each State was indebted to New England for slave labor.
And even this diabolical traffic, whose continuous phos
phorescent wake across the Atlantic rivalled at night the glow
of the Milky Way, and planted mile stones along that watery
wilderness witb negroes murdered in "The Middle Passage,"
Puritan historians have vainly striven for a hundred years to
fasten on foreigners and the Southern States. To the base
ness of the subterfuge of this lame attempt to flee from Jus
tice there was one notable exception. He was New England's
shield. Protector — ^the Great High Priest and Prophet at whose
feet she knelt and prayed "Give us this day our daily bread."

CHAPTER XI.
DANIEL WEBSTER.
The more we know of biographies of our great men, the better
we understand our history. In fact, the world has but recently
learned tbat history is biography multiplied. The third chapter,
Vol. I., of Macaulay's History of England, has taught us how
to write tbe complement to history. 'Who, after finishing the
reading of a volume of Ancient History, has not felt as he laid
it dovra as tho' be had been stuffed with trash and sawdust.
Take, for instance, the stories we have been told of the world's
greatest intellectual wonder — "The Blind Old Bard of Scio's
Roclsy Isle." He has been held on stationary exhibition for
thousands of years as a Cosmic Santa Clans, decorated from
head to heel -with marvelous gewgaws, the gayest ribbons and
sweetest bonbons, to be handed out to each succeeding genera
tion to delight its babyhood. It is true that he lived in an
age of what we call "fable," when history was scarcely written;
when no less than seven cities claimed his birthplace, but it is
too much for human creduUty to be told that this blind old
man had caught floating on the air a thousand fugitive legends,
not one any more connected with the others than is a story
of the Arabian Nights with one of St. Paul's epistles; and that,
with the power of a magician, be wove them together, changing
and reordering to give them form, expression and continuity,
until they appeared in all the silken tapestry and beauty of the
Iliad and the Odyssey.
During thirty-five years of his life the opinions of Daniel
Webster had a very marked influence on all the separate States,
and on the political action of tbe people in the Northern
States. Tn both relations — ^the States and the people — ^that
influence produced results disastrous to the entire country.
As usual, the good lies buried with his bones — ^the evU lives
after him. A critical study of this one life affords more material
for an understanding of tbat part of our history than does the
biography of any other man; and the actual time occupied in

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 67

expressing the opinions that worked the evil was less than one
day. The first event was bis argument in the celebrated case
of The Dartmouth College vs. Woodward ; and the second was
his reply in the United States Senate to Robert Y. Hayne. The
third was his reply to John C. Calhoun. No single argument
has had such far-reaching and disastrous effect on property
rights of citizens of tbe United States as Mr. Webster's in the
Dartmouth CoUege case, and no single speech has ever insti
gated and hastened such widespread devastation and ruin in
any country, in any age, as the one delivered in reply to Hayne.
He deUvered very many speeches and addresses on a variety of
subjects, but these three are the chiefest. They stand out as
bold, lofty promontories- on the current of his Ufe. The only
other speech I shaU review is his valedictory to his ruined
country on the 7th of March, 1850, wben, with tbe courage of
a martyr calmly viewing tbe kindling of the fagots that are to
consume bim, he rose in the Senate and offered himself a
¦willing sacrifice on the altar of bis country, in atonem^ent for
the ¦wrong he bad done ber in the same Council Chamber where
resounded the echoes of his speech of January, 1830, just
twenty years before. But, this farewell address did his coijntry
no harm, whereas the injustice of the Dartmouth speech runs on
in perpetuity, and tbe evil of the replies to Hayne and to Calhoun
bore their first national curse in disimion, war, fraticide and
perpetual enmity. All bis other speeches were incident to tem
porary occurrences and recurrences — such as men in public life
in America are often called upon to make. I do not now recall
one speech (excepting the three named) that survives to bless
or to plague our country.
His position as a debater is in the front rank of every age
and every country. As a speaker he was strong, attractive.
Convincing. Being by association a federalist, he took up With
joy and wore witb ease the massive armor that felt from the
gigantic figure of Alexander Hamilton, when the vicious bullet
of Aaron Burr snuffed out that brilliant but baleful light.
But, as oratory is understood by Americans, Mr. Webster was
not a great orator. At no time was he Uke Demosthenes attack
ing PhUip, or Cicero assaulting Catiline, nor had be Sheridan's
electric flashes when playing around and peeling Warren Hast-

68 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
ings. Nor was he such an orator as George Whitefield, WilUam
Pinkney, Wm. Wirt, Patrick Henry, Seargent S. Prentiss, Wm.
C. Preston, Geo. F. Pierce and many others. His style was not
attractive ; it did not beget imitators as did those I have named
— especially Pierce and Whitefield. He lacked Demosthenes 's
definition of an orator — "Action! Action! Action!" While
speaking he usually kept his left hand under his coat-taU,, and
rarely gesticulated with bis right hand. In fact, he not only,
did not study nor practice any of the graces, or vocal efforts, of
oratory, but he ignored them. He seemed absorbed by his sub
ject. He had none of the facial and gesticulatory interpreta
tion that convey to hearers the 'delicate shades of meaning that
tone of voice and the power of words can not convey : the art
that assimilates nature and which is the gift of every great
orator and actor.
Oratory as popularly understood by English speaking people
was not a gift to the Puritans. From the first appearance of the
Puritans above tbe horizon in England to the Revolution of
1776, there were no orators of national reputation among them.
Poets are born, orators are not. Oratory is a social develop
ment; there must be instigation — a prevailing stimulus that
arises from environment. No man orates in soUtude to the
wilderness. Demosthenes practiced on the seashore, but his
audience was waiting in Athens. Abstract oratory springs from
the emotions of the speaker and goes directly to the emotions
of the hearer. It does not move through reason to the emotions ;
it is independent of reason. Oratory in the concrete seizes both
reason and emotions and directs them at will.
It is more than doubtful whether Mr. Webster, with the
assiduous study of a life time, could have made himself a
great orator. He was of ponderous physical mold. His fea
tures were heavy, immobUe, and when at rest, stern and almost
saturnine. This be might have modified, but be could not
have overcome the impress on his nature made by tbe cir
cumstances surrounding his birth and his education. If not a
Puritan by descent, as is claimed, still his ancestors had lived
in New England so long that they were Puritans in faith, in
habits, in practice, temperament and religion.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 69
During tbe century of Puritan oocupation in England, be
fore their migration to America, according to their account,
there was oppression more than enough to have produced
many orators. But their records are barren of orators.
As no orators were propagated among the Puritans in Eng
land or HoUand, during the religious and ci-vic beat and
ferocity that foUowed the Reformation, it was not to be ex
pected tbat any would be begotten after tbe migration to
America, wbere civic strife and religious ferocity were im
proved upon by imprisonment, the pillory, the cat-o-nine-tails,
starving and tbe Tyburn Gibbet. That gibbet, be it ever remem
bered, was not to break the necks of men and women for
murder, but to bang neighbors and friends because they icould
not believe an impossible creed — a creed that in the century
from 1775 to 1875 was battered into pulp in New England by
the "apostolic blows and knocks" of the children of the Puri
tans who murdered their neighbors for nonconformity to it.
The latest Northern opinion of note, and one ex cathedra,
on Mr. Webster as an orator is by the Rev. B. F. Tefft, D. D.,
L. L. D., in his preface to a recent volume containing eleven
speeches by Mr. Webster which Dr. Tefft considers to be the
greatest of the many be delivered. He says:
"It is to be hoped that his style of elocution — calm, slow,
dignified, natural, imambitious, and yet direct and powerful,
will take the place of tbe showy, flowery, flashy, fitful and bois
terous sort of speeches which seem to be becoming too com
mon; which so breaks down the health of the speaker, and
which is nevertheless most likely to strike the feelings and
corrupt the judgment of the young, * * * I bave never
heard Mr. Webster, even when most excited, raise his voice
higher or sink it lower, or utter his words more rapidly than
he could do consistently with the most perfect ease. He never
played the orator. What he had to say he said as easily, as
naturally and yet as forcibly as possible, with such a voice as
he used in common conversation, only elevated and strength
ened to meet the demands of bis large audience. So intent
did he seem to be, so intent he certainly was, in making bis
hearers see and feel as he did, in relation to the subject of the
hour, that no one thought of his manner, or whether he had

70 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
any manner, untU the speech was over. That is oratory, true
oratory, and it is to be hoped that the more general distribu
tion of these masterpieces will have tbe ultimate effect of mak*
ing this tbe American standard of oratory from this age to
all future ages."
Dr. Tefft 's opinion of oratory and of orators, I am sure
will not be approved by any Southern man. On the contrary,
the facts he gives will convince all that Mr. Webster was not
an orator. He, Uke Mr. Calhoun, was a reasoner, a logician;
neither was gifted, as all orators are, witb strong imagination..
I doubt, from Dr. Tefft 's opinion of oratory, tbat be ever heard
an orator. A noted orator from a Southern State spoke ui
New York City one night about 1837. Two preachers, having
heard how be could hold an audience, agreed to hear him.
When they arrived at the door of the hall, one said, "Let's
look at our watches and time him." At tbat moment the
speaker uttered his first sentence. He spoke two hours. When
he closed, the preachers were standing at tbe door with their
watches in their bands, as when he began. Captivated by the
first words, they had forgotten to sit down or to pocket their
watches. When this orator — Seargent S. Prentiss, of Missis
sippi — as contestant for a seat in the House of Congress, by
permission of the House delivered bis speech, the Senators,
-without formal adjournment, went to the House to hear him.
Daniel Webster was greatly interested. As be Ustened, a Sena
tor by him said: "Mr. Webster, did you ever hear anything
equal to that?" "Never!" Webster replied, "except from
Prentiss himself. ' '
Dr. Tefft resides in a region where true oratory has been
unkno-wn since the day of James Otis. It was suffocated by
Puritanism, fanaticism, commerce and avarice. It cannot sur
vive a day in pawnshops, factories, whaling vessels and slave
traders. 'The Puritan 's eloquence was and is ' ' tbe parcel of
a reckoning." In the effectiveness of that vocabulary be has
no superior, if any equal.
In presenting this view of Mr. Webster as a speaker, I
accord to him ability equal to that of any other American
statesman. I wish to save American youths from being led
astray by the false ascendancy imputed to Mr. Webster by a

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 71
gentleman whose honorai*y titles alone of D. D. and L. L. D.
might induce the untutored mind to accept tbe learned Doc
tor's view of oratory and of what makes an orator.
Witb tbe data now in band, we can consider Mr. Webster
as orator, statesman, citizen and patriot. When Doctors differ,
laymen are at sea. And among Mr. Webster's intimate ac
quaintances and personal friends there is a vdde difference of
opinion on his position as an orator. This disagreement is
accountable for on two grounds: First, the capacity of thesje
judges to decide what is oratory, and, second, tbe extent of
their acquaintance with orators. They all assign Mr. Webster
to the highest position as an orator, but when they go into
details and describe bis style of speaking, they leave him as
a great debater only. This no one can deny, that, as a logician
he has had few superiors. Logic, however, is but one of the
elements of oratory, and one of tbe least. The speaker who
by icold logic alone reaches the judgment, is in no sense an
orator. This effect may be produced by the essayist, by tbe
Judge by his judicial opinion, by tbe la-wyer addressing a court
on a question involving the Rule in Shelly 's Case, by the black
smith over bis anvU. Passion in its broadest sense— deep
emotion: — conviction — ' ' action — action — action ' ' — imagination
— easy and apt expression by word, face and gesture — are the
chief elements and gifts of a great orator. A full, sonorous,
well modulated voice is a most effective adjunct, 'but not a
necessity to an orator.
All biographers of Mr. Webster are of opinion that he was
a great oratpr. Some rank him witb Demosthenes, Cicero, Lord
Chatham (Pitt) and Burke, and say he has no equal in America.
But when they describe him while speaking, the description
falls short of this opinion, or proves there are "many men of
many minds" as to what oratory is. Henry Cabot Lodge, one
biographer, declares tbat Mr. Webster was deficient in "cre
ative imagination"— a fact patent in all his speeches. This
clips the -wings which are as necessary to an orator as to a poet,
though not to tbe same degree! Another biographer says Mr.
Webster seldom gesticulated, and then with tbe right arm.
The latest biographer (1911) Sydney George Fisher, Ltt. D.
L. L. D., devotes a chapter to Webster's "eloquence." He

72 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
draws a comparison between Webster, Burke, and Lord Chat
ham, but it is not as orators, but as stylists. He ranks Webster
among t'he few greatest oraiors, but be fails to characterize his
oratory. His quotations from several speeches do not de
scribe the orator. They show his thoughts and his, abiUty to.
clothe them in gorgeous apparel. Oratory consists of two es
sentials — first, the mental operation, and, second, the physical
delivery, which includes voice, tones, gestures, facial expres
sion and action. Briefly described, oratory consists of manner
as well as matter. Tbe mental product is aU that Dr. Fisher
considers. Edmund Burke was not a great orator. He emptied
the House of Commons, but as a rhetorician be has no equal.
Richard Brinsley Sheridan had not tbe magic wand of Burke
to summon tbe tropes, similes and metaphors from the mind'fi
vasty deep that came in rOyal array at bis bidding, but on the
trial of Warren Hastings for despoUing the Begums in India,
the address of Sheridan before the House of Lords was incom
parably more powerful than the speech of Burke. In fact,
that greatest master of the English language pronounced Sheri;
dan's speech as the grandest oration that was ever uttered by
human lips. And the world, with deliberate judgment, has
affirmed that opinion.
But it is waste of time and words to discuss with any son
of New England tbe status of Daniel Webster as an orator.
When she "makes up her mind" on any question she is "sot."
(I beg to say I am indebted for that euphonious classicism to
our most admirably amiable President* who for years has been
running to and fro over the land tbat ballots might be increased,
and dropping, like the good little girl blessed by the good Fairy,
whenever he opened bis mouth, precious gems among vast multi
tudes of the Faithful. I recaU at present but one other instance
of such delicious verbal extravagance. It was a peroration to a
lofty imaginary, eloquent flight by tbe same orator, ending in
the brilUant burst, ' 'I wiU now get dovra to brass tacks. ' ' As the
subject under consideration is oratory of the highest order, I
make no apology for the introduction of those two appropriate
classicp,l gems.)

*Mr. Taft.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 73
There is a way open to settle forever and beyond cavil the
question whether Daniel Webster was one of the world's few
great orators. It is a quasi judicial procedure. New England
contends that be is. She holds the affirmative and has pro
claimed it lustily since 1830. When a plaintiff goes into court
he is supposed to make tbe strongest statement of his case that
the facts will afford. It is fair, therefore, to assume that New
England, through ber many biographies of Webster has ex
hausted ber accumulation of proof to raise him to the highest
pinnacle as an orator. But to get a decision of a court there
must be law as well as facts. Neither is of any use without the
other. There must be a standard by which to judge oratory.
The standard, if there be one, is the law to be applied to the
facts before judgment can be rendered. Lack of this standard is
the cause of dispute. Each man has his own standard and tbat
is tbe law he appUes, and gives judgment. If the law — if the
true standard — could be found, the law that neither plaintiff
nor defendant (the pubUc in this case) could object to, a correct
judgment could be arrived at readily. Fortunately for all par
ties concerned the law that controls the case is in hand. It is
law that New England can not question. Tbat is about the
most hazardous declaration any man can make, in view of her
action in church and State for three hundred years. Neverthe
less, I shaU let it stand ; I should bave said I will not question
it, because it is tbe law as expounded by her greatest son, her
wisest statesman, her strongest inteUect, ber greatest orator,
ber dearest idol — excepting one only, the man, John Brown,
whom New England deifled in 1859. In the opinion of New
England, there has lived but one man whom the description
here given could possibly fit, and be was Daniel Webster. In
that surmise she is correct, for he announced the law of oratory
and eloquence in bis eulogy on Jefferson and Adams, as follows :
' ' Clearness, force and earnestness are tbe qualities which pro
duce conviction. True eloquence, indeed, does not consist ih
speech. It can not be brought from far. Labor and learmng
may toil for it, but they -will toil in vain. Words and phrases
may be marshaled in every way, but they can not compass it.
It must exist in the man, in the subject, and in the occasion.
Affected passion, intense expression, the pomp of declamation.

74 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
all may aspire after it ; they can not reach it. It comes, if it
comes at all, like the outbursting of a fountain from the earth,
or the bursting forth of volcanic fires, with spontaneous, origi
nal native force. * * * The clear conception, outrunning
the deductions of logic, the bigh purpose, the firm resolve, the
dauntless spirituspeaking on the tongue, beaming from the eye,
informing every feature, and urging the whole man onward,
right, onward to his object — ^this, this is eloquence, or rather,
it is sb^mething greater and higher than eloquence, it is action,
noble, sublime, godlike action."
Those who doubt can lay side by side Dr. Tefft 's description
of Webster's oratory and Webster's description of oratory, and
decide whether there are any two features alike. Dr. Tefft
says : "Webster as an orator was 'calm, slow, dignified, natural,
unambitious.' " Webster's idea of oratory: "It comes, if it
comes at all, like the outbursting of a fountain from the earth,
or the bursting forth of volcanic fire -with spontaneous original
native force. ' '

CHAPTER xn.
MORE AS TO WEBSTER'S ORATORY-
SOME OF HIS FAULTS.
I have' said that tbe error in assigning to Mr. Webster tbe
station of first orator in America may be due to two causes —
first, the incapacity to decide what is oratory, and, second, the
extent of tbe acquaintance of these judges with orators. With
out assuming any superior judgment on the question of oratory,
I wUl submit my reason for that remark. It is a fact that no
one who is weU informed on the debates in Congress, on the
-hustings and on the sermons in the pulpit from colonial days to
1861, -will deny that the most effective orators were Southern
men. The strongest statesmen were also Southerners. The rea
sons for this are ob-vious. The men of the North, as a rule, were
men of affairs, were inercbants, traders on land and on seas.
They thought then, as now, in doUars and cents. This, in part,
was from necessity. The cUmate was severe ; the working days
were few as compared -with the seasons in the South; living
was strenuous, and arithmetic was more attractive than rhetoric.
When they put their tools aside, stopped their plows in the
furrow, or laid down the yard stick, to listen to a talker, they
insisted on hearing something besides gab, something tbat
would pay, tbat could better their condition. Again, in the
main, they were Puritans. The niling classes were Puritans.
And as their history shows, they were actuated by two controll
ing forces, one reUgious fanaticism and the other insatiable
avarice. Those who were not Puritans, if they escaped the vims
of fanaticism, by association and absorption contracted the
vice of greed for gold. It was the latter that drove them to the
high seas as whalers, and, especially, as hunters of negroes in
Africa to seU them as slaves to whomsoever would pay the
price. These occupations were not stimulants of the most eff ec-
tive'of human agencies — oratory, They were not a hot bed to
sprout young orators".

76 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
There was another reason for the deficiency of oratory in
the Northern or free Statep. It was the depressing effect on
the mind and the emotions of Puritanism. Its repeUent ascet
icism, its sullen serenity, its religious fanaticism, its tyrannical
espionage over family relations, its sanctimonious precisian
ism, its inquisitorial constabulary, its Sabbatarian Arctic atmos
phere, and Pharisaism, were more than enough to freeze all
emotions in the bud, and to repress every form of eloquence.
But of aU agencies for stifling any growth of oratory, the
worst or most effective were the sermons in the Puritan "meet
ing house" on the Sabbath. Attendance was compulsory on
fathers, mothers, children, bachelors, spinsters, widowers and
widows. This was the chief duty of a Puritan, and failure to
perform it was punishable by fine, or, in default of payment,
with imprisonment, and, in some instances, witb banishment,
or sentence by tbe High Court to slavery for life among negro
slaves in tbe Barbadoes or West Indies. This condition was
about as conducive to eloquence as wearing the bilbo, or stand
ing in the pillory, all of one day in every week.
But there was another ordeal the young victims were forced
to imdergo, to which, in comparison, the sweat-box was equal
to a watermelon patch to a negro. This was the style of oratory
and the matter of the long-winded sermons seasoned with
brimstone and hellfire, and that grated on their nerves from
four to six hours every Sunday. For more than a century after .
Plymouth Rock succeeded the Tarpeian Rock in its bloody
sacrifice, there was not a preacher in the entire Puritan hier
archy who could be classed as an orator, nor was there a lay
man an, orator untU the soul of James Otis was set on fire
by the rising flame that produxjed tbe conflagration of 1776.
The pulpits were fiUed by dialecticians, by didactieians, by '
exegetists, by schoUasts, commentators, expounders of Scrip
ture, egotistic bigots, ignorant aspirants to be expositors and
elucidators of St. Paul's metapbygics. And the popular dis
courses, or compositions, were on the abstruse puzzles of the
doctrine of Election, Salvation by Faith, Salvation by Works,
tbe Mystery of the Triune Godhead, Original Sin, Mankind's
Total Depravity, Baptism, Witchcraft, a Personal DevU, Hell-
fire, Eternal Damnation, et id onme genus. The Personal Devil

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 77
with horns, hoofs and tail was tbe popular Caliban chained in
every pulpit, ready like Jack-in-the-box to be sprung after the
affrighted audience had been scorched by the burning brim
stone into hysterics. He it was who bought the souls of women
and young girls with tbe Black Shilling, and then changed
them to witches. While young and old were held fast to the
benches by tbe fear of ten shillings fine, and were compelled
to listen to what they could not understand and what the
preachers did not understand, a guard with a staff in band
was stationed so be could see all faces, and if lany one smiled,
or whispered, or was fidgety or bad to scratch, the guard would
march across and tap the offender with his badge of authority
as a warning not to repeat the offense. This theological glacier
covered New England for more than a century. Under its
arctic breath not even the lichens of oratorical growth could
take root. Then came, early in the eighteenth century, Jona
than Edwards, who, standing on the solid glacier prepared for
his coming, witb the commission of an angry God in his hand,
lifted the lid off tbe seething, roaring, boiling, brimstone bil
lows of Hell for bis panic-stricken bearers to see their certain
destination and doom. Listen to bis wrathful denunciation a
moment before we pass on:
"The bow of God's -wrath is bent, and the arrow made
ready on the string, and Justice bends the bow ; and it is noth
ing but the mere pleasure of God — andi that an angry God,
without any promise or obligation at all — that keeps tbe arrow
one moment from being made drunk with your blood. The
God that holds you over the pit of Hell — ^much as one holds
a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire — ^a,bhors you
and is dreadfully provoked. His wrath towards you burns
Uke fire. He looks upon you as being worthy of nothing else
but to be cast in the fire. He is of purer eyes than to bear
to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more
abominable in His eyes than the most hateful venomous ser
pent is in ours." (Sermon "On Sinners in the Hand of an
angry God.") An eye witness said that the hearers of Ed
wards were so frightened that they, trembled, turned livid,
and clutched the benches and each other from fear of falling
into Hell.

78 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
It is scarcely presumptuous in any one to entertain the
opinion that even the most learned scholars with a line of
Puritan ancestors extending throtigh three centuries, with such
an environment as I have imperfectly desicribed; with such a
succession of cold, unimpassioned ascetic preachers, who, there
fore, have not had the opportunity to hear great orators, are
as well qualified to sit as judges on the question of true oratory
as others who bave heard year in and year out such orators
as Henry Clay, William Pinkney, William Wirt, WUUam C.
Preston, Seargent S. Prentiss, and many, many more Uke them.
Mr. Webster, coming less than a quaii;er of a century after
Jonathan Edwards passed away, and being of a Puritan stock
by whom but one great orator, George Whitefield, had ever
been heard; never having heard a master of elocution untU he
entered Congress, when he was thirty years old, after his own
delivery bad become seasoned and set, could not whoUy escape
the repressive influence of the stereotyped, tricentary medio
crity that surrounded him like the encasing air. We hear
this influence in his "slow, icalm, dignified elocution," in his
"conversational voice," in his neglect of gesticulatory inter
pretation, in bis lack of facial expression, except what was the
gift of nature in bis luminous eyes. We see it in his "practice
before the glass," so to speak, as wben bis son, Fletcher, saw
bim— While angling in a brook — advance bis right foot, raise
his eyes heavenward and— bis right band pointing up— de
claiming: "Venerable men! You have come down to us from
a former generation;" or we know it by his constant revision
of all his speeches after delivery, expunging here, adding there,
striking Latinities and inserting Anglo-Saxonisms, so that no
speech exists today as he delivered it. We know bis deficiency
in what Senator Lodge caUs "Icreative imagination." He was
a mighty reasoner; master of words with his pen, after deliber
ation, but not wben on his feet, as was Prentiss, who, aU that .
beard him agreed, spoke no word that could be impro-ved iy
the use of another. Mr. Webster's great power was in his
almost infaUible logic ; in his earnestness of manner, and his
elear distinct enunciation, and bis deep, meUow voice.
Every country or government of distinction in history has
had separate periods tbat were so different that they have

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 79
been known by appropriate names. Greece had ber heroic
age and her golden age under Pericles. Rome had her colonial,
her conquering and heroic age, and then her golden age under
Augustus. Our Government had first its moral and patriotic
age, next her combative, intellectual agfe, and last ber age of
lawlessness, greed, graft and immorality. To be explicit I will
add that, for about a quarter-century after the Revolution, the
eleietorate chose their public servants for their personal honor,
patriotism and fidelity, and not for intellectual ability. They
preferred an honest common-place to a brilliant knave. But
this decision was greatly modified by the constant agitation
by the AboUtionists tbat grew worse every year, who pelted
Congress every December witb petitions demanding the aboli
tion of slavery — an act not within the power of Congress to
do, as those fanatics were told la thousand times without abat
ing their insane conduct a minute or a line. This quarter-cen
tury was around the year 1810. Soon the war of 1812 was
brewing, and the refusal of Massachusetts and other New Eng
land States to honor President Madison's call for troops in
tensified tbe sectional feeling the fanatical Abolitionists had
been inflaming for twenty years. It was about this period
when the voters, North and South, began to think more of
ability in their Congressmen. At this time New Hampshire
discovered Daniel Webster and sent him to Congress ; then be
moved to Boston and she sent him to Congress and kept him
in the Senate until 1841. In 1816 the tariff loomed up with
poirtentous proportions. Tn 1820 a new danger to the Repub
lic alarmed all patriots when the Missouri Compromise had
to be adopted by Congress — ^that admittedly had nc iurisdic-
tion over the question involved — to insure the public peace.
Sq far we have been looking at Mr. Webster's strength.
That justice may be done and history not ibe made to speak;
falsely, we must note his weaknesses. He had some venial
faults, some very grievous. Tbe venial are the common heri
tage of mankind and we need not dwell on them, but it is tbe
duty of aU dealing witb biography to bring to light the faults
as well as tbe virtues of those of whom they write. Biography
has a twofold purpose; one is to encourage and to stimulate
coming generations to pursue virtue, and the other is to warn

80 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
them to shun vice. While I am not writing biography, there
are certain quaUties and conduct of Mr. Webster that lie
directly in the path I am on, and cannot be avoided. With his
¦ admirers and extoUers at the North, Mr. Webster for thirty
years, ending March 7th, 1850, was Ajax carrying, supporting
and defending single-handed the Constitution and tbe Union,
and was held aloft above aU Southern men as a model for
youth and manhood. He was Sir Oracle, Priest, and Prophet;
he was infaUible. I bave sho-wn that be was a descendant
through many generations of the rough, imcouth, thorny Puri
tan stock. Although he was buUt on too large a^ scale intelleo
tually to tolerate the Puritan's superstitions and ungodly re
ligion, yet he did not escape the social uncoutimess inherent to
Puritanism. It was his environment ; it stuck to bim under all
the refinements, etiquette and courtesies of Washington society.
While Secretary of State, when ladies caUed on business to
see him, he did not offer a chair, but kept them standing. He
was gentle by nature, but tbe Puritan rough bark was never
rubbed off nor smoothed down. One of his grievous faults
was insensibility tp the obligation of debt. By consensus of all
civilized and semi-barbarous peoples, this fault is one of the
worst; for, although not criminal, there is no grade of offense
that lies between it and cheating and swindling; so close are
they tbat, to avoid one the offender must move into the other.
This moral insensibility envelops ingratitude, selfishness and
indifference to the legal rights, comfort, pleasures and welfare
of creditors and their families.
An incident in the life of Mr. Webster has been repeated
in a journal within a few months past. It was this: "Henry
Clay, who was of the same breed of debtor, but not a
thoroughbred Uke Mr. Webster, went to Riggs's Bank in Wash
ington to get a loan on his ovra note of $250.00. He was told.
tbat by the rules of the hank he must get an endorser. He
asked Webster to endorse, who gladly agreed to "oblige his
friend." "By the way. Clay, I want $250.00 right now. Can't
you make the note for $500.00 ? " " Certainly ! ' '¦ said Mr. Clay,
"glad to help you out." The note was made for $500.00, and
tbe bank lent the money and holds the note now "in memory
of the deceased." Mr. Webster was always careless with

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 81
money. He, on one occasion,' had read a law report he wished
to use before a court. He desired to mark the page ; there was
no loose paper near, and after looking around him, he felt in
his vest i)ocket, took out a $5.00 bill and put it at the page.
It turned out that he did not use the decision, and the biU re
mained in the book and was found after many years.
There are those who do not consider this indifference to
debt a very great deficiency in Mr. Webster's character. This
is because they are deficient in the same spot. Every com
munity has Dick SwiveUers whose debts make of them cowards
and they avoid certain streets in order to dodge their credi
tors; also Harold Skimpoles who have no sense of the value
of money. Mr. Webster was not driven into other streets, like
Dick Swlveller, to dodge creditbrs, as he received in fees large
sums, but, Uke Uttle Harold Skimpole, be did not know the
value of money, and could not keep it. He must have been a
Mr. Mieawber in the flesh in one respect. When Mr. Micawber
signed one of his hundreds of promissory notes in the shape of
"I. 0. U.," be would exclaim with a feeling of great relief —
"Thank God! tbat debt is paid." What would this world be,
if, when it started out on its pilgrimage thousands of years
ago, aU men had no more regard for their "promise to pay"
than had Daniel Webster? The human family would probably
be squatted like tbe Chaldeans, or their distant forbears, on
the plains of Shinar, swapping kids and lambs, bullocks and
heifers, for food, and skins for wear, and thousands of un
happy debtors would never have been oppressed by "where
ases" followed by "fleri f aclases" and then by "scire f aclases"
that served as unsolicited letters of introduction to bigh
officials dweUing -within gloomy walls and behind iron
doors. There could bave been no credit and no progress, for
credit, like faith, removes mountains. This is but tbe physical
aspect of the world. What the effect on the morality of men
would have. been, even tbe imagination icannot portray. But,
unfortunate as was this indifference to monetary obligations,
it led to other and far more reprehensible conduct of Mr. Web
ster. This requires a few introductory remarks :
I bave said tbat Mr. Webster . entered Congress in 1812,
New Hampshire, bis native State, sent bim. After serving two

82 TI^UE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
terms he moved to Boston, and in 1823 Boston adopted him
and sent him to the House of Congress, and in 1827 Massa
chusetts sent him to the Senate. He had become a recognized
national force by bis triumph in the ease of Dartmouth Col
lege — ^where he captured the fuU Bench of the United States
Supreme Court and bore it away as easily as Samson carried
away the gate of Gaza. I have not dwelt thus long on Mr.
Webster's venial and reprehensible weakness with tbe sUghtest
pleasure, or feeling of gratification. On the contrary, -viewing
this side of one of America's strongest inteUects has fiUed me
with deep regret. It is like looking at Achilles in fuU arni,or
holding bis magic shield, while the mind's eye dwells on his
vulnerable and fatal heel, or, when we are lost in admira,tion: ,
of the wisdom of Lord Bacon, some vagrant thoughts will
steal away and we detect them glancing at the great Lord
Chancellor as he sells justice on the woolsack. In my boyhood
I declaimed with pride: "Venerable men! you have come
do-wn to us from a former generation. Heaven has boun- ,
teously lengthened out your Uves that you might see the light
of this glorious day — ," and many others of those gorgeous
Websterian fabrics, strong and beautiful, so elaborately re
vised and poUshed again and again, that they resemble the rich
and rare oriental tapestry woven at the cost and sacrifice of
human life.
I have never understood why Mr. Webster, in his eulogy
on Jefferson and John Adams, delivered as a part of-, his ad
dress an imaginary speech as made by Adams in the Continent
al Congress, and silently allowed it to be printed and spread
over the United States as actually delivered by John Adams.
Every compUation of extracts from speeches of our great ora
tors for declamation in schools, contains the speech beginning :
"Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my band
and my heart to this vote!" The occasion was sublimely sol
emn. The lives of the two men, Jefferson and Adams, were
deserving all that any orator could bring to pl£|,ce on their
brows as a crown of glory; and nothing but the strictest
conformity to trath and history was permissible. But the
orator trifled -with his audience by fabricating a patriot's arid

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 83
an orator's glowing words, and by introducing Adams as the
patriot and orator.
I say I have never understood why this trick was played,
but I have a theory, which, in the absence of a better, may be
worthy of acceptance. This address was deUvered in 1826 in
Faneuil Hall. The men to be eulogized were antipodal — Jef
ferson, Southern; Adams, Northern; Jefferson, a Cavalier;
Adams, a Puritan ; , Jefferson, a Virginian ; Adams, a typical
product of New England — bigoted, narrow and uncivil. As
an instance of this — wben Jefferson, his successor in the presi
dency, was to be inaugurated, Adams was so uncivilized and ill-
bred that he refused to meet Jefferson, or to attend his inaugu
ration, and hurried away from the Capital tbe minute his term
of office expired.
Mr. Webster knew both subjects of his eulogy. He knew
Adams intimately, and knew his inferiority to Jefferson. His
task was not easy, for, addressing a New England audience he
could not afford to do otherwise than to try to elevate tbe
Puritan approximately to the lofty height of the Cavalier. He
icould not "tear angels down," so he attempted "to raise" a
very mortal "mortal to the skies." To do this be resorted to
the ruse of exploiting Adams as a great orator, knowing Jef
ferson was not; and as be could not produce, cite, or quote
any great speech of Adams, and as tbe country knew that the
speeches in the Congress never passed beyond the walls of
the building, Mr. Webster bit on the device of having obtained,
in some way, a speech tbat Adams delivered during the secret
debate. It may be that Adams had practiced a pious fraud
on Mr. Webster at some moment of convivial confidence, by
giving bim, under pledge of secrecy, a copy of a speech he
asserted he made in the Congress, and Mr. Webster dressed
it in a suit of his Sunday clothes for its introduction to Faneuil
Hall. And as Mr. Webster icould not tell bow he got it, and
also knew that, should he tell, Adams would be denounced, as
a liar far and wide, Mr. Webster introduced tbe speech with
the foUo-wing ambiguous verbiage;
"Hancock presides over the solemn sitting; and one of
those not yet prepared to pronounce for absolute independence
is on the floor, and is urging bis reasons for dissenting from

84 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

tbe declaration: 'Let us pause. This step once taken can not
be retraced,' " etc., etc. As Mr. Webster's biographers say
that he. always revised and praned severely every speech of
importance, it may be that the above introduction was not what
Mr. Webster spoke, but is what he afterwards wrote for pub
lication. President Fillmore asked Mr. Webster what author
ity be bad for putting that speech into tbe mouth of John
Adams. "None, except Mr. Adan^s's general character. I -wiU
tell you what is not generally known. I wrote that speech one
morning before breakfast in my library, and when it was
finished my paper was wet ¦with tears."
It will be noticed in Mr. Webster's eulogy that he first
created a very timid patriot — one who let "I dare not"
wait upon "I would;" who held the dagger over tbe heart
of the old tyrant king, but was too cowardly to strike — and
stood him up, quaking, to drivel out his fears to the Conven
tion, iand then made his New England hero cry — "Give me
the dagger!", and thrill bis paUid compatriots with a grand ¦
oration, opening with a double tautology — "Sink or swim,
live or die, sur^vive or perish, I give my heart and my hand
to this vote," (composed by Mr. Webster A. D. 1826, one
morning before breakfast, in his Ubrary) so eloquently
, that, thirty-eight years after the imaginary orator closed
with the opening tautology, Mr. Webster shed tears so
copiously as to wet the paper be wrote this imaginary hero's
imaginary oration on. If another edition of D 'Israeli's Curiosi
ties of Literature sboT7ld ever be issued, its richest and rarest
gem would be the story of John Adams's greatest oration, that
drew tears from New England's greatest orator while
he was composing it thirty-eight years after tbe only occasion,
whep it might have been delivered, had passed. After Mr.
Webstei^ had wept profusely over Adams's imaginary speech,'
composed by Webster himself, be exclaimed in bis eulogy —
"And so shall that day be honored, illustrious Prophet and
Patriot! So that day shall be honored ! "i— the audience not
dreaming that Mr. Webster was the "Ulustrious Prophet and
Patriot." The old saw — "there are tricks in all trades but ours," is
recalled by this interpolation of an imaginary speech. Tf the

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH! 85
purpose was to exalt Adams above Jefferson, it was, no doubt,
successful witb a New England audience. The speajker was
the proudest champion of that group of States, and in his
heart they overlay all other States in the Union. He knew
their weaknesses, and that tbe Union was of greater value to
them in doUars and cents than to the Southern States, and his
devotion to the Union was largely fostered by that knowledge.
As slight evidence of this first love, as well as of Mr. Webster's
intention to enhance tbe glory of John Adams, even the casual
reader of this address and eulogy observes that he eulogizes
Hancock, President of the Congress, and Samuel Adams and
Elbridge Gerry and Robert Treat Paine, all colleagues of John
Adams in tbat Congress, and he says not a word of the six
colleagues of Jefferson. Why devote a page to these Puritans
and ignore the more distinguished and abler Cavaliers ?

CHAPTER Xin.
WEBSTER AS STATESMAN AND PATRIOT.
I shall now consider Mr. Webster as a statesman and
patriot. Why I link the two vsdU appear as I proceed. As a
master of the science of political government, (if it may be
properly caUed a science), he probably had no superior in this
leonntry, excepting Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and
John C. Calhoun. As the rich nugget found on the surface
indicates the wealth of gold beneath, every speech of Mr. Web
ster's suggests the vastness of bis resources lying in reserve.
There was one occasion — tbe greatest in his eventful career
— when he sank the statesman and the patriot in the partisan
and lawyer. It was when he replied to Robert Y. Hayne in ,
the Senate, January 26th, 1830. That speech is the corner
stone on which the height of his massive fame now rests. He
was then in the vigor, mental and physical, of his mature man
hood — being forty-eight years of age. He bad won national
fame by bis argument in tbe ease of the Dartmouth CoUege vs.
Woodward in 1818. He had enraptured the Old, as well as
the New World, by bis philanthropic sentiments expressed, in
his "Plymouth Oration, December 22nd, 1820.'" He had gained
distinction by his speech on "The Greek Revolution" in the
House 'of Congress, January 19th, 1824. He had arrested the
attention and the labors of the busy sons of a second genera
tion, to hear a recital of the heroic deeds and sacrifices of their
sires, by bis oration at the base of Bunker Hill Monument. In
another field of thought which he enriched and adorned, he
had delivered bis eulogy on Jefferson and Adams, July 4th,
1826. Wben he rose to reply to Hayne be bad a reputation
as an orator and as a statesman, and master of our federal con
stitution, that surpassed tbat of all other Americans. To sus
tain this high and enviable reputation; to hold the belt he
wore as champion in America; to win other and greater laurels;
was a temptation tbat few, if any, mortals could resist. Un
fortunately, Mr. Webster, ingrafted with many frailties, was

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 87
not one of the strong and noble few. He struck not the rock
that healing ijvaters might flow. He struck for personal vic
tory without counting the cost. He was blinded by the glitter
that shines afar from the temple of Fame, and could not see
that in thrusting at the antagonist before bim be was stabbing
his beloved mother— his country. Like Hamlet, vrixo with his
rapier rent the arras to reach — as he thought— the King, but
kiUed Polonius, he with bis Damascus blade cut down the Con-
stitutioji to conquer his adversary.
But there was another, and, if possible, a stronger motive
impeUing Mr. Webster to enter tbe lists for victory. From
1828 to 1830, inclusive, tbe whole country was more violently
eacited than at any other period before tbe debate on slavery
in 1850. The Puritans were aroused again by religious
fanaticism in tbe form of the immorality and sin of slavery,
and by avarice that was fattening on Protection. The two sec
tions — the North and the South— ^bad drawn the line (Mason's
and Dixon's) and were in hostile array. Each, for ten years,
had been marshalling its intellectual giants at Washington
for ,the combat. The front of each of the forces was uncovered
in 1820 when the struggle over the admission of Missouri as
a State was on. The negro slave was tbe casus belli. Tbe
battle raged furiously for months, and peace was not declared
until a truce was agreed on in the form of a compromise. Still,
the Puritans, whUe baffled for tbe time, sullenly retired with
the avowed purpose to agitate freedom of slaves by Congress.
The Compromise left the other Puritan vice — avarice — in full
play; and a new Tariff BiU for Protection was passed in 1824,
and still another, with greatly advanced oppressive rates, in
1828, that shocked tbe entire country except New England.
South Carolina was aroused to sucb a degree of protest that
she inaugurated the tmovement known as "Nullification.''
Senator Hayne, speaking for South Carolina, attacked the ecor
nomic policy embodied in the statute of 1828, and Webster, as
the paid counsel for the factories bad to defend the statute.
Minor debates occurred in the Senate during 1828 and 1829 on
the injustice and sectional advantages of the law. Several
passages took place between tbe two champions on whom the
final struggle devolved in Jandary, 1830,

88

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

Just here it is opportune to notice the oft repeated boast
by Webster's admirers and bolsterers tbat the debate was
sprung on him by Hayne as a surprise, and that he repUed with
the preparation of only one night. A more palpable, open,
barefaced fraud was never worked up and palmed off on a
trusting pubUc, or a blind beggar. Every step in the life of
Mr. Webster puts this Munchausen romance — ^this Canterbury ,;;
tale— this braggart's subterfuge— this cock and buU story—
to shame. FIRST : Mr. Webster's chief study, from the time he entered ;
Mr. Thompson's office as a student of law, was the federal
Constitution. It was bis primer, bis vade mecum, his Bible.
He was not a great lavsryer. Innumerable instances are given
of bis application to Judge Story and other great jurists for
the law he desired in cases be had to try. But be adored the
Constitution. He pored over it year by year, and no man
understood it better, if as well.
SECOND : Mr. Webster made a special study for two years
of the question of Nullification and Secession before bis final
debate witb Hayne. Secession was not a new question. It
was as old as the ordinances of New York and Virginia adapt
ing or agreeing to the Constitution. It reappeared in Ken
tucky by her Resolutions of 1798. It was again emphasized by
Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts in a speech in Congress ui
1811. It was in the air — ^buzzing around the bead of Mr. Web
ster — in New England for thirty years before the debate in
1830. The Hartford Convention revived it. It was the ulti
mate remedy advocated by the Puritan abolitionists by which
New England could escape from aU responsibility for the un-
pairdonable sin of negro slavery which she bad fastened on the
South. It was advocated openly by these supersensitive saints
who proposed to organize New England into a separate repub
lic. Was Mr. Webster deaf from 1798 to 1830? Hugging the
Constitution to his bosom as a palladium, did be fail to hear '
the ominous sound of Secession that was the alphabet of New
England for young and old ? Did it shock bim ? Did it arouse
him to action? Did be rise in his majesty, as in bis perora
tion in reply to Hayne, and rebuke with anathemas the Puri
tan Secessionists, and ask, "What is all this worth?"

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 89
THIRD: Mr. Webster knew in 1827 that the question of
Nullification was agitated in South Carolina and that a debate
on it must occur in Congress. He knew; that Secession was
I being considered in New England, and that it was considered
feasible and probable, if Nullification should not be a remedy.
Can any man honestly believe that Mr. Webster was not pre
paring for the part be must take in a debate involving the life
of the Union, which be professed to love as his mother? Was
he idle for tbe two years proceeding tbe debate in 1830? To
suppose it is to do him a great injustice and to deny the well
known method he always employed as a speaker, which was
not only to prepare carefully and write in full what he would
deliver, but to write and rewrite the manuscript after the
delivery. Would be faU to be preparing for the most im
portant combat in bis life? It is not honest to think so, and
it is not truthful to say that his reply to Hayne was extempore,
or not thoroughly prepared.
FOURTH : Mr. Webster did not beUeve in oratorical genius.
He had no confidence in anything but labor, and he made that
his genius. He said, when talking on this subject, that bis sen
tence (speaking of Great Britain) : "Whose morning drum
beat, foUowing tbe sun and keeping company with the hours,
circles the earth -with one continuous and unbroken strain of
the martial airs of England," was suggested to bim when view
ing a military parade at Montreal, and that it required much
thought, at different times, to construct and polish the sentence.
It is affirmed by the biographer of Mr. Hayne, Mr. Jervey, of
Charleston, S. C, that Mr. Webster did not cease to polish bis
reply to Hayne for eleven years after its delivery.
There is a tradition coming down from the age of Plato
that a continent lying between Europe and America called
"Atlantis" was sunk many milleniums ago in some total con
vulsion of the earth, carrying down a very cruel and bloody
people. There is a continent of New England's enormous his
tory tbat without any seismic disturbance, but by conspiracy
among her Puritan sons, direct and collateral, has been studi
ously and laboriously smothered and concealed :?or near three
hundred years. It is of a people bloody and cruel like the
Atlantise, with the added superlative of religious fanaticism

90 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
and insatiable avarice. It is a very smaU portion of this sub
merged histoiry that ber great giant, Daniel Webster, was sup
ported, in part, by men who battened on tariffs for Protection.
For near fifty years bis many biographers, among them George
Ticknor Curtis, Harvey, Edward Everett, C. H. Van Tyne;
March and Plumer, as they wrote, have sat on the trap door
tbat icovers this Puritan scandal and corruption. Senator
Lodge in his brief story of Mr. Webster lifted, the trap quite
enough for the public to catch the odor, but not enough for
the eye to be seared.
The men enjoying the benefits of Protection kept Mr. Web
ster in public life to serve them by bis great ability. This thing
was not done in a corner, nor behind the door. It was an
agreement. Mr. Webster made money at the Bar, but he had
no sense of economy. He spent la"visbly, was always embar
rassed by debt and haunted by debtors, and to keep him in
Congress he was paid to look after tbe .interest of the protected
classes. There were forty (40) men who subscribed to an
agreement to pay him a pension so long as he served them in
the Senate. This fact is at last frankly' stated by Sidney
George Fisher, Litt. D. & L. L. D., in his biography, "The True
Daniel Webster," published in 1911, page 488. Thus Webster
was the distinguished forerunner of Senator Piatt of New
York and many hundred insignificant successors strung along
from New England to Oregon, aU above the Ohio -River- ex
cept a few carpet-baggers, fetid scabs sloughed from social
putresence, who, after 1865, were set up like tenpins by the
Protection Pensioners in the Senate to answer roll call. And
this merchandise was called Senators, and is called Senators.
This political debauchery— buying and owning a special at
torney, dressing him in the white toga of a U. S. Senator—
the passport of statesmen and patriots ; this relation of lawyer
.and client imposed on the lawyer an obligation to serve his
client to tbe utmost of his abUity. It was the most insidious,
dangerous and effective form of treason a government ha^ ever
encoomtered. Insidious, because it was tbe spirit tbat disrupts
every social bond known to the human race; dangerous, be
cause it cannot be seen and combated ; effective, because it de
stroys every agency on which a government must rely for its

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 91
preservation — ^the honor, courage and devotion of its citizens,
or subjects. There were two overpowering temptations to
make the speaker forget his country, tbe first, the desire to
win the title of ¦victor; the other, was an obligation of honor
that a lawyer feels to his client who is supporting bim.
Just when, that is, the day, month, or year this corrupt
coalition was formed is not known and never will be revealed.
Probably every conspirator is dead. All conspirators at first
are timid because they know not whom it is safe to approach.
The common knowledge of human nature suggests tbat the
ruin was wrought by gradual approaches, as sappers and
miners work underground. It may bave been accomplished
by tbe artful advances of tbe seducer. Tbe entering wedge
employed was evidently the weakness of tbe victim as an
economist ; as a debtor in distress because of his uncontroUable
extravagance. It may have been accomplished as those Puri
tan bribers' descendants now manage their Trusts — "by a
¦wink," "a nod," or a figure or a label on each conspirator
with a letter of tbe alphabet, as "A" stands for Armour, "B"
for Swift, "C" for Cudaby, or "a verbal understanding among
gentlemen." (?) We know tbat Mr. Webster entered Con
gress inclined to free trade; that be gradually changed until
he favored Protection before 1828, and tbe debate under re
view was in January, 1830. We know be was then past middle
life, that be had been master of Marshfield years before the
debate; that be bad stocked his farm with, tbe most costly cat
tle, sheep and horses, and that tbe farm was quicksand for
sinking money. It would throw Ught on this national scandal
could we know the date of tbe paper signed by the forty seduc
ers, if indeed, seduction was necessary.
As this review of Mr. Webster — ^the magnus Apollo of all
New England's sons — is in part an answer to her continued,
constant assumption and boast in books, speeches, magazines,
daily, weekly and monthly journals, of her immeasurable superJ
iority in intellect, religion, morality, virtue, intelligence, cul
ture, manners, ethics and all else tbat pertains to civilized
people, I will conclude this point of view by saying that he
would have been a reckless and a desperate man who would
have dared to suggest to Calhoun, Hayne, Forsyth, Crawford,

92 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Toombs, Stephens, or any other of tbe South 's thousands of'
public men, that be should remain in Congress on private pay
to advocate the interests of any man, or privileged class,
against tbe interests of the common country.

CHAPTER XIV.
MR. WEBSTER'S MORAL ATTITUDE
CONSIDERED.
Let us look at Mr. Webster's moral attitude when he was
preparing bis reply to Hayne. The gravemen of the contro
versy was tbe High Protective Tariff of 1828. He was then
the paid counsel and advocate of tbe reapers of riches from
that ravenous monster. Wben its head, with destructive
aspect, appeared in the East, be heard the alarm sounded in
the South of danger to the Union. He knew that disunion
was death to this vampire that was sucking the blood of all
except his clients. Nullification was the dreadful note. He
knew that every Southern State, except South Carolina, dis
approved of ber remedy. Therefore, he knew be was on solid
ground in attacking NuUification. But, he also knew that
Secession was a national doctrine. It bad been asserted by
Virginia, New York and Kentucky; in Rawle's Text Book at
West Point, and advocated a thousand times by New England
statesmen, orators, preachers, speaking singly and in a number
of conventions. It was a remedy as variant from Nullification
as the withdrawal of a number of church members from a
large congregation is from burning the church and scattering
the entire number among other denominations; as when, for
instance, in 1844 tbe Southern portion of the Methodists with
drew or seceded from the United Church of the entire Union,
because the Northern members used their strength and ex
peUed Bishop Andrew of Georgia because his wife owned
slaves she had inherited and held in ber own right.
Mr. Webster, whUe his mighty brain was revolving the
multiform issue, discovered without debate tbat the death
blow be might deal to NuUification would stiU leave intact,
unhurt and available the remedy of Secession, which bis o^wn
clients not only conceded as constitutional, but bad advocated
so often that it was, so to speak, the political alphabet of New

94 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
England. He saw, of course^ that Secession, whUe not so disas
trous to the beneficiaries of Protection, would cripple them
badly, as they would have only about half the impotent sub
jects to prey on. His only course, therefore, was to defy pub
lic sentiment. North and South, to over-ride for their benefit
(as counsel sometimes bave to do) the opinions of his ovra
clients and constituents; to push aside the Constitution that
contained no inhibition except what was expressed in lan
guage so plain tbat he who runs may read and understand; to
seize Secession without warrant or authority of law and charge
it as being as vile a traitor as Nullification that proposed to
stay in the Union and to defy its laws ; and to sack and drown
the two together; and while hugging to his palpitating bosom
the assaulted Union, to arouse the sympathy of the jury sAi
obtain a verdict by such ra^visbing sophistry, and his clients
would then be left ¦with free hands and an open field to continue
their plunder of tbe public to the verge of Revolution, which
they are now rapidly approaching. He could then say as
Brutus to the co-conspirators — "Now let high-spirited tyranny
reign on" — tyranny of numbers — tyranny of factories over
the fields — ^of Puritan greed over a burdened and weary con
tinent ; tyranny of usurpation of power not named in the bond-
in the compact, or contract, caUed the Constitution.
Mr. Tefft (compiler of Webster's eleven greatest speeches)
reaffirms the stale discredited tradition tbat the reply to Hayne
"was nearly extemporaneous." Webster bad studied the Con
stitution until be knew it by heart. This study ran through
thirty years. He bad reflected on the question of Secession
just as long, simply because New England did not allow him
to escape it. In 1828 Secession passed from a theory to an
urgent practical issue to be, met and decided. It was forced '
to the front by threat of NuUification. Here was Webster's
stamping ground, soon to be a battle-field. He treated the two
as twin-monsters. The Constitution was bis ovra great pet
specialty. He was .attorney for cUents who, he knew, would
demand all tbe powers of his inteUect, as their all was staked
on the issue. His national reputation as ' ' Tbe Great Expounder
of the Constitution" was! to be maintained. As he always pre
pared thoughtfully .and critically every speech wben time al-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 95
lowed, did he, in the most momentous hour of bis life, go fish
ing and hunting, or dawdle at Marshfield among his pets —
cattle and sheep? Did the rhetorician, who was such a sleep
less guard over his fame as a faultless verbalist, as to rehearse
by words, gesture and pose his Bunker Hill address while
standing in a brook fishing for trout, neglect to prepare for
the greatest occasion of his life, when defeat would be a Water
loo to him and bis purse, bis cUents and New England, fol
lowed for bim by a St. Helena? "Tell it not in Gath; preach
it not on the streets of Ascalon" or any other town or hamlet
outside the sacred soil of New England. I do not say sacred
because it has been made' holy as the sepulchre of so many
martyred Quakers and noble women and innocent children
butchered as ¦witches, but because the dwellers thereon rever
ence it as sacred. I spoke of the tradition as stale. Let me
rather, say, an enchanting fable for children everywhere ex
cept those of bis credulous old mother. New England, and
only with them and ber because it is "impossible." Said an
agnostic, speaking of miracles, "Tbe thing is impossible, and,
therefore, I believe it."
Mr. Webster, like Macaulay, was -widely noted for his ten
acious memory. Macaulay going from Dover to Havre one
stormy lught, being unable to sleep, sat on the deck alone and
entertained himself by repeating Paradise Lost. Mr. Webster,
after arranging bis thoughts for an address, however lengthy,
without reducing them to writing, could deliver them as ar
ranged without breaking the connection, or gamboling from
the text. He had conned bis reply to Hayne until he was as
familiar with every paragraph, sentence and word as he was
¦with Pope's "Essay on Man," which he could repeat in full.
He had chosen bis vantage ground and bad planned the battle
and was resting for months for tbe enemy to appear. In the
words of Senator Benton he had been "lying in waiting for
the hour to be delivered." His points of attack were selected
with the skill of the incomparable Corsican, or of the immortal
Lee wben he crushed the enemy at Chancellorsville and tbe
Wilderness. He had stationed along his extended line at
selected intervals all the material of war for attack and defense
¦with which nature had bounteously provided bim, and which

96 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
laborious art bad improved by untiring practice. He had
drawn on that world-wide arsenal in which is stored every
perfect weapon tbat man can use, all fashioned and burnished
by the greatest artisan "in the tide of times,''' who sleeps on
the bank of the classic Avon. He bad timed the moment when
he would bring into atction the light anns of humor, raiUery
and satire ; when to open with the thunder of his heavy artil
lery; when to frighten his adversary with the bloody ghost of
Banquo and the quaking figure of the treacherous, traitorous
new-made Thane of Cawdor — his fancied prototype of the un
grateful son who would murder his benefactor and protector,
the Union — ' ' willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike ; " he had
planned by artfiil circumlocution to clothe bis ad^versary in
the repulsive garb of a propagandist of treason; and then to
overwhelm bim with a crushing blow, not only on Nullifica
tion, but on its twin traitor. Secession. For bis peroration he
drew on Lucifer for assistance when he prayed that his "last
feeble and lingering glance should behold the gorgeous ensign
of the Republic * * * stUl fuU high advanced."
"Extemporaneous?" "Nearly extemporaneous?" JuSt
about as extemporaneous as was the Declaration of Independ
ence, or the Constitution of the United States.
Had Mr. Webster been statesman and patriot on that fate
ful day so fruitful of calamity and ruin, the drama cast by
bim, himself the on^y actor, would not have been staged. He
could and should have washed his soul of the bribe, and have
offered himself white and pure as a sacrificial offering to save
the Union. But, having a giant's strength, be was tempted by
self-interest and ambition to use it Uke a giant. In bis zeal
for the Union he wrecked the Constitution, which alone up
held the Union. Unwittingly be anointed as both Seer and
Prophet, tbe patriarch, and patriot— Patrick Henry— who
pleaded with his mother, Virginia, not to unite her destiny
with the Puritans. He demonstrated the wisdom of Senator
Maclay of Pennsylvania who recorded in his Diary— "I would
now remark that there is very little candor in New England ,
men. My knowledge of their character warrants me in dravtr-
ing the conclusion that they wiU cabal against and endeavor

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 97
to subvert any government which they have not the manage
ment of."
Witb bis flaming blade he wrote into the Constitution
"Secession is Nullification, and Nullification is Treason." Tf
he bad done as all great lawyers do — confined bis attack to
the tme and only issue, that Nullification is Revolution, and
on that solid foothold bad staid bis impetuous steps and sealed
there his inflammatory lips; bad he had tbe moral courage to
turn upon his rapacious clients — sons of "the horse-leech" ever
crying "Give! Give!" — and tell them their greedi had
pressed their victims to the very verge of disunion, and that
he must turn his back upon them and bis face to his plundered
country and put forth his strength to hold them at bay and
protect the suffering miUions, be would have saved a half
million of men from being food for powder, and thousands
food for ¦vultures, and billions sufficient to purchase the United
^Kingdoms and Sovereignties of Europe.
"CromweU! I charge thee, fling away ambition!
By tbat sin f eU tbe angels ; how can man, then,
The image of bis Maker, hope to win by it?
Love thyself last * * *
Corruption wins not more than honesty!
I m * * m * *
Let all tbe ends thou aim'st at be thy country's,
God's and truth's; then if thou fall'st, 0 Cromwell,
Thou faU'st a blessed martyr!"
Wben the orator rounded off bis polished peroration — "Lib
erty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable" — the
unthinking multitude at the North threw their bats in the air
and shouted "Hosanna! the Union is safe!" They did not
know the issue on trial. It was not Union nor Disunion. It
was" THE PEOPLE VERSUS HIGH PROTECTION."
When tbe sophist and pensioner, with the sleight .of band
of the master of Three Card Monte, slipped Protection off the
board and substituted Nulliflcation and proclaimed the case to
be "THE PEOPLE AGAINST NULLIFICATION," and
changed his Brief from that for the defendant— High Protec-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

tion, to one in favor of the People, and after he bad successfully
convicted Nullification of Ti-eason and then seized and dragged
in Secession, and by bold, bald assertion, unsupported by reason
and in defiance of the consensus of opinion. North and South,
denounced Secession as twin traitor with Nullification, the jury
rendered its verdict in favor of his clients and almoners.
When the paid advocate by ipse dixit convinced the jury
that Secession, like NulUfication, was Revolution and could
not be effected without war, be set bloody treason afoot, and
laid a train with burning fuse that just thirty years thereafter
exploded a mine that laid low in death a half mUlion men,
and made a million cripples and homeless widows and orphans.
I have said the pensioned pleader set treason afloat. Is this
rhetoric and no more? Is it a figment of the brain? Let us
see. "Words are things, and a small drop of ink
FaUing like dew upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think."
"Nullification is Revolution! Revolution is war ! Secession
is Revolution, therefore Secession is war! When these words
were read into the Constitution by its "Great Expounder,"
the Northern sesessionists, seeing tbat avenue closed, changed
front, joined the abolitionists, and raised the cry — "Slavery
must be destroyed." As hornets swarm for battle wben dis
turbed, these conspirators rushed to the field. They flooded
Congress with petitions. In 1835 37,000 petitioned Congress to
abolish the tvdn sister of anarchy. Tn 1836, 110,000 petitioned.
In 1838 the number of these patriots whose fathers had coined
fabulous wealth out of this unpardonable sin, swelled to 500,000,
and ran into millions before 1860.
After Webster's speech (1830), abolition societies were
rapidly organized. In 1836 there were 527. Tn 1837 the num
ber was 1006. Tn 1838 there were 1346, and there were 155,000
enrolled members. Soon the children of the Northern States
were seized with nausea and retching from the sour grapes
their fathers had eaten so ravenously and waxed obese upon,
and they assembled and endeavored to get relief, not from the

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 99
accumulated fat but from the sin of their fathers, by passing
statutes to punish any and all who should obey the law of Con
gress requiring States to deliver up fugitive slaves. To resist
a federal law "The Great Expounder" bad told them was
treason. Patriotic Massachusetts was found among these
defiers and nuUifiers of the law, and her Union loving sons
soon became mobs to resist and nullify the laws of the Union
they so much adored. To nullify the High Protective Tariff
in South Carolina was Revolution — ^was treason. To nullify
the fugitive slave statute in Massachusetts was patriotism,
philanthropy, was executing the will of God!

CHAPTER XV.
REMARKS ON WEBSTER'S REPLY TO
HAYNE.
The three speeches by Daniel Webster that -wrought incal
culable loss and ruin to the people of this country, are his
argument in the equity case of Dartmouth College vs. Wood
ward, bis reply to Robert Y. Hayne in January, 1830, and his
reply to John C. Calhoun, in February, 1833. It is my pur
pose to make good that assertion as to the replies to ^ayne and
Calhoun. The Dartmouth College decision needs no comment.
It has been a stump in the way of every lawyer of extensive
practice ever since it was rendered.
As the two replies were on the same subject — ^the tariff for
Protection passed by Congress in 1828 — although deUvered
near three years apart, and as the second (the reply to Cal
houn) was but the complement and enlargement of the first, I
shall notice both together, considering them, in some respects,
as one. About the only difference in the cause of the debate
with Hayne in 1830 and with Calhoun in 1833, was that the
question of NuUification by South Carolina was a theory in
1830, whereas in 1833 it was an accomplished fact, and the
Bill, ever since known as the Force Bill to coerce South Caro
lina into obedience to the statute for Protection, was then pend
ing in Congress. Webster's speech in 1833 was in reply to Cal
houn's speech against the Force BiU. Calhoun replied to Web
ster in an argument on the nature of our dual government that
has never been answered. Before taking up for discussion
the views of Mr. Webster, expressed in these two speeches, I
think it wiU not be unprofitable to make a few remarks on his
reply to Hayne.
The first is tbat the speech, viewed as a whole, makes the
impression that Mr. Webster was not enthusiastic in the con
viction of the correctness of bis position. In Dr. Tefft 's com
pilation of Webster's eleven greatest speeches and arguments,
his reply to Hayne fills 91 pages. Of these, 64 pages are fiUed

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 101
before he mentions the main issue. He begins on page 64, and
says : ' ' This leads us to inquire into the origin of this govern
ment and tbe sources of its power." Of the remaining 27
pages, more than half are on matters, some historical, that are
dehors the record; such as, what New England did and did
not when the embargo law was passed; the second is a waste
of words in exploiting South Carolina's record on tariff for
Protection, and the third a short dialogue from bis melodrama
in which he stages tbe scene in Carolina when the Senator,
(Hayne), General of the MUitia, should meet the federal troops
in his State ordered there to coUect custom duties. The per
oration covers two pages.
It is a significant fact that in the entire 91 pages, the word
"NuUification" occurs but once, and that the portentous word
"Secession," familiar to him for thirty years, is not sounded
at aU. The first 64 pages could bave been omitted without
impairing the strength of the speech as an argument. But in
his reply to Calhoun, three years later. Secession, Revolution,
RebeUion and NulUfication roll along page after page, band-
cuffed together as a bloody quartette equally guilty of treason,
and aU fit only for the gallows. Why this change? Mr. Cal
houn had not discussed Secession as a remedy for South Caro
lina. The word, or the treasonous thing. Secession, was not
in Mr. Webster's way! But he seized it — an innocent looker-
on — and dragged it in, damned and banged it with the other
traitors, as the entire country looked on in amazement, espec
ially New England, where Secession had long been a house
hold word, familiar to the ears of tbe speaker and volunteer
hangman. Tn the last preceding chapter I gave a few of the sources
that had made Secession so familiar to Mr. Webster. The
hustings, the forum, the daily papers, the pulpits, every chan
nel of infonnation ¦written, printed and spoken, bad been for
thirty years vocal of Secession. Rev. Wm. E. Channing, New
England's greatest religious light at that day, and only two
years older than Webster, -wrote of slavery — "We are for
Union — ^but not slavery. We will give the Union for the aboU-
tion of slavery, if nothing else will gain it, but if we cannot
gain it at aU, then the South is welcome to a dissolution — the

102 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
sooner the better." What made Mr. Webster silent on Seces
sion in 1830, what made him so violent against it in 1833?
This caimot be answered in a word, or a sentence. To under
stand what occurred we must go back to tbe time and scene — , j
be "a looker-on in Vienna" — and gather up the surrounding I
facts and from them catch the psychology of the moment. To
do this it is necessary to repeat a few words from the preced
ing chapter. From the beginning of the 19th century New
England had been in a mental and spiritual ferment over
slavery in the South. That is to say — Puritan religious fanati
cism was again in the ascendant. This was sho-wn by Mr.
Hayne in his speech, and Mr. Webster admits it by words that
confess but a small part of the extent of tbe frenzy. When
trying to belittle Hayne 's partial array of New England's
turbulent and threatening writings and speeches against the
South on account of negro slavery that she — ^New England —
had fastened on the South, Mr. Webster said:
"Why, sir, he (Hayne) has stretched a drag-net over the
whole surface of perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy
paragraphs and popular addresses; over whatever the pulpit |
in its moments of alarm, the press in its heats and partie^ in
their extravagance, have severally thrown off in times of gen
eral excitement and violence. He has thus swept together a
mass of such things as — ^but that they are now old and cold —
the public health would bave required bim rather to leave
in their state of dispersion. For a good long hour or two
he recited speeches, pamphlets, addresses, and all the et
ceteras of the political press, such as warm beads produce in
warm times."
Two important facts are made prominent at this point in
the debate; first, that to suggest Nullification of a statute of
Congress by South Carolina was treason, and to be treated
with the utmost severity by the government; and, second,
that in New England, for more than thirty years, disunion, ¦'.'¦
secession, and forming a separate republic bad been advocated
in every possible form and threatened from bar-rooms to pul
pits, and New England's greatest statesman, when confronted
with the facts, and not able to meet them, raised the Puritan :
shield inscribed "I am holier than thou" and endeavored to

TRUE, VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 103

turn into ridicule any criticism of New England's acts. He
had kno-wn all tbat Hayne quoted. He bad heard it through
thirty years. He knew the authors were fanatics and danger
ous beyond human conjecture. He should have denounced
them as enemies of the Union, and have tried to segregate
them socially, and thus forestall contamination by association
and example. Instead of assuming the role of patriot be chose
to play the part of Pantaloon.
A statesman pure and imdefiled would have admitted the
enormity of New England's many sins touching slavery, and
have deplored her punic faith in trying to overthrow the Con
stitution she had so recently accepted as her protecting shield.
The admission coidd not bave weakened his attack on Nullifi
cation. But Mr. Webster was not a statesman pure and un
defiled. By nature he had been afflicted with the curse of
Mammon common to tbe Puritans, and, by bargain and sale,
the statesman had sold out all his natural endowment and all
he had acquired to the committee of Forty, who represented
the protected pensioners of the government huddled together
mainly in Massachusetts. It must be a great pleasure to those
who are on watch for coincidences to note tbat the number
of thieves (40) who infested the town in Persia in the days
of Ali Baba and Morgiana, and owned the cave that opened
to no other word or agency than the word "Sesame," is the
exact number (40) of Puritan bribers who bought Webster's
head and honor by paying bim an annual pension so long as
he was a Senator. Tbe Greeks would explain the coincidence
by metempsychosis — ^that the 40 thieves of tbe twelfth cen
tury, in Persia, had reappeared in the 19th century in Boston.
Mr. Webster seems to have approached tbe main subject
of his speech -with marked circumspection, and as if held in
leash by an invisible power. That power was the sentiment
of New England on tbe right of a State to secede. He was
representing her industrial interests in the Senate, and ber
favor was bis fortune. He was not decided as to Secession.
This is shown by the Resolutions drawn by him and adopted
by the mass ineeting at Framingbam in 1812 protesting against
the embargo, and sent as a memorial to President Madison.

104 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
The part of the Resolutions appropriate to this view, Ino-w
quote :
"We are, sir, from principle and habit, attached to the
Union of the States. But the attachment is to the sub,stance
and not to the form. It is to the good which this Union is
capable of producing, aiid not to the e^vU which is suffered
unnaturally to grow out of it. If the time should ever arrive
when the Union shall be holden together by nothing but the
authority of law; when its incorporating ¦vital principle shall
become extinct; when its principal exercises shall consist of
acts of power and authority, not of protection and beneficence;
when it shall lose the strong bond which it hath hitherto had
in the public affections ; and wben, consequently, we shaU be
one, not in interest and mutual regard, but in name and form
only — ^we, sir, shall look on tbat hour as the closing scene of
our country's prosperity.
"We shrink from the separation of the States as an event
fraught with incalculable evils, and it is among the strongest
objections to the present course of measures that they have,
in our opinion, a very dangerous and alarming bearing on
such an event. If a separation of tbe States ever shaU take
place, it will be on some occasion wben one portion of the
country undertakes to control, to regulate and to sacrifice
the interests of another; when a small and heated majority
in the government, taking counsel of their passions and not
of their reason, contemptuously disregarding the interests and
perhaps stopping the mouths of a large and respectable minor
ity, shall by hasty, rash and runinous measures threaten to de
stroy essential rights and lay waste the most important in
terests." Mr. Webster wrote the above in 1812. He was then thirty
years old. With diplomatic circumspection he teUs President
Madison that he and tbe people of New England may be
driven, by unjust legislation by Congress, to secede from the
Union. His use of tbe word "Separation" has but one mean
ing and that is Secession. "We shrink from the separation
of the States." "If a separation of the States ever should
take place."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 105

The second remark on the reply to Hayne is, that there is
no record of another speech, ancient or modern, composed of
such material, by which the speaker won sucb wealth of fame
as Webster won by this. It is almost impossible to exagger
ate the exceeding weight of glory it massed upon him. He
was estimated as above comparision, in America, as a debater
and rhetorician. And those who do not analyze the speech
and weigh its parts, consider it as Webster's masterpiece. In
rhetorical finish I think it his best. As an argument it is be
low, probably, twenty of his speeches. As evidence of good
judgment and statesmanship it sinks to tbe level of the sophist
and empiric; as in making sport of the speeches, sermons,
etc., of religious fanatics, produced by Hayne, instead of de
ploring their perfidity and admitting their danger, and in
putting Massachusetts on exhibition as a model, without quali
fication, instead of being truthful on her record — ^the worst
of any of all the colonies — ^America's graveyard for mur
dered Christians and negro barbarians made slaves by her.
If Hayne had replied he could have flayed Massachusetts year
by year for two hundred years, and sent ber to Coventry with
incurable bed-sores purging pestilent pus until tbe crack of
doom. This speech brought to Webster's name more praise and
glory than any other he ever delivered. And, yet, the perora
tion is the chief piUar that sustains its reputation. Exclude the
closing page and tbe magnificence of tbe speech was facti
tious. Tbe entire Union was excited. Not one man and voter
in fifty knew the meaning of the word "Tariff." Not one in
a hundred had ever heard of Tariff for Protection, or imder-
stood it when told of it. The people of all sections were de
voted to the Union. Congress to them was a sacrificial assem
blage of immaculate and industrious patriots, working for
the common good and general welfare of all. They were told
that South Carolina was trying to dissolve the Union, to throw
everything into chaos, only because Congress, while passing a
law to raise money to carry on tbe Government had put too
much in the Bill. They did not understand what she meant
by Nullification, nor how she intended to work it.

106 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Again, all tbe intelligence of the North favored high Pro
tection, because the North got tbe benefits. The North was
practically unanimous in support of the law, and the South,
through ignorance of the real issue, was enlisted in favor of
the Union. For these reasons, nearly tbe whole population
was against the position of South Carolina. The Protection
ists, who had the money, sowed every State, county and ham- '
let with printed copies of Webster's speech. Almost evei7
teacher of schools in the South was a "Yankee" from New
England. Each was supplied with a copy of the speech, and
boys in every school, North and South, declaimed the perora
tion that bad been so artfully constructed, polished and beau-
tified, to arouse the sentiment of devotion to the Uiuon. All
things were in conjunction and apposition to crovra Webster
as the victor of the day, and as champion of the Union. He
was not simply the "Great Expounder of the Constitution."
He was also defender and savior of the Union !
New England, through tbe tariff of 1824 and 1828, had
just received the most convincing proof of the value to her
of tbe Union, and between 1830 and 1833 ber opinion on Seces- ¦
sion imderwent a change, and with ber change of front we
see her champion and political vane, pari passu, turning also; 2
that is, between 1830 and 1833 Mr. Webster became an anti-
secessionist. Whatever may have been the opinion of the paid
counsel on Secession in 1830, when his cUents were undecided, ;
or, rather, divided, he readUy adopted their changed views of
Secession in 1833 wben he repUed to Calhoun. Before 1830
Secession was the popular medicamentum to purge the North
ern conscience of the many and compUcated sins of slavery.
It was before 1830 tbat aU tbe conventions to propagate Seces- ,:i
sion and the convention to form a New England republic, i
were held. After that year, the kind of Uterature on the curse '
of slavery that Mr. Hayne produced and quoted, feU off, and
anti-slavery societies and petitions to Congress, as I have
shown in the preceding chapter, grew and multipUed in geo-
metncal ratio. It thus appears that cupidity and high Protec- 1
tion stimulated the greed of New England and opened her
eyes to the incalculable value of the Union to her, and that
her greed and avarice shifted her remedy from Secession to

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 107
that of aboUtion societies, and petitions to Congress praying
that body to abolish slavery.
This change of front from Secession, advocated by the
North, changed and fixed steadfast Webster's opposition to
Secession, and caused the only substantial difference in the
reply to Calhoun from the reply to Hayne. That difference
was in yoking Secession witb Revolution, Rebellion and Nulli
fication. But the immensity, the enormity, the far reaching
stretch of that difference no human thought can estimate, no
human imagination can encompass. Tbe effort is Uke that of
trying to compass within tbe limits of a thought tbe distance
from the earth to a fixed star. It is like the vain imagining
of what would be the social and geographical condition of
Europe, and even Asia and Africa, bad tbe dictatorial Empire
of France over-wbeUned tbe combined kingdoms of Europe
at Waterloo. We see all around, and we feel and bave felt
for fifty years, tbe direful effects of tbat change of one man's
opinion on Secession between 1830 and 1833. His pronounce
ment in reply to Calhoun was received voraciously, yes, "with
Ucking of tbe Ups," by the North. The, Great Expounder, Sir
Oracle, had spoken, and settled the long dispute against the
adherents of Secession. The student of causality finds in the
words in reply to Calhoun — "Secession means war; there can
not be a peaceable Secession" — the vital germ of tbe war of
1861-5. From the day wben those onmious words were pronounced,
the North incorporated them in its political creed, and Abra
ham Lincoln, finding nothing in the Constitution to authorize
an invasion of one State by another, or by all the others, to
conquer with a bostUe army, adopted the Websterian oracle
that Secession was RebeUion and Revolution as bis plea in
justification for invading the seceded States with three miUion
soldiers, on tbe pretext of enforcing obedience to federal civil
laws. Mr. Webster's luminous logic could not fail to see the full
force of Hayne 's indictment based on what be (Webster)
called the "ass's load" of pamphlets, speeches and sermons
against the South, but lust for victory, sectional pride, obli
gation to his constituents and industrial cUentele swept be-

108 TRUE VINDICATION , OF THE SOUTH
tween his vision and bis imperiled country, and he changed
into burlesque-comedy the lowering and fast approaching ele
ments of the most brutal tragedy the world has ever looked
upon. He lived to survive that mental eclipse, and to feel
by anticipation the ruin awaiting the Union through his
sophistry and defection to duty, when, as one of the people's
guardians, be sank his country to serve bis greedy clients
and to gratify his own ambition. And to bis credit, it must
be said, he had the courage to acknowledge his -wrong as pub
Ucly as he had committed it, though not in words so expUcit
and clear. But as the most penitent confession of murder
cannot revive tbe victim, so this confession, coming twenty
years after the crime was committed, could not arrest the
swift footed mischief he bad so gayly turned loose; and his
dying confession did no good for his country, but it worked
ruin to himself.

CHAPTER XVI.
WEBSTER'S REPLY TO CALHOUN
CONSIDERED.
I shall now consider more directly the speech of Mr. Web
ster in ireply to Calhoun. That a clear view of the issue may
be had, I, "at the risk of incurring tbe reader's displeasure,
must put in compact form what has been stated in discon
nected shape — the history of tbe situation when this debate
occurred. I make no apology for this part repetition, because
this debate was the most important tbat ever took place in
the history of the world. By it one man, against the lessons
of history, against cotemporaneous construction North and
South for forty years, against tbe terms of the Constitution
and against reason, if we consider the intention of the framers
of the Constitution; by forced construction and by resorting
to the preamble to the Constitution, wrote into that most
solemn instrument — every word of which was thrice weighed
by the ablest statesmen in America before it was accepted —
the words, "Secession by a State from these United States
is Rebellion," and thus changed by his single word, tbe only
complete republic in all the course of time into a despised
tyrannical despotism, or mobocracy, or ochlocracy. These are
not pleonastic words, they are descriptive of a chapter in the
history of this government. For in the Spring of the year
1861, Abraham Lincoln, without authority of Congress, the
oiUy power in this government that can declare and make war,
invaded the State of Virginia at the head of 75,000 troops
equipped with all modern appliances for destruction, desola
tion and murder.
The situation at the time of the debate was as follows:
Congress bad passed a number of bills to raise revenue for
the federal government. In 1816 one was, passed that had a
small addition for what was called protection of a few indus
tries. In 1824 this addition was raised so as to give still more
protection. This aroused strong opposition. In this bilT the
fine hand of New England was visible. She was the favored

no TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
recipient of the increased revenue. She was the spoiled and
the pet child in the family. This statute disclosed the pur
pose of New England to be supported by the govemment— a
purpose that has been persistently urged and carried into
effect for a flundred years. Tn 1828 New England came again
with the plea of infant industries and of guarding America's
freemen against competition with Europe's paupers and serfs,
and got a big advance on prior laws for Protection. By this
time protection had sloughed off its common noun and neuter
gender and become a distinguished member of the faimily of
proper nouns, and therefore entitled to an initial capital P,
which it has worn ever since with high and insolent crest. The
gender, though not disclosed, may be inferred from the
thousands of infant industries that have been hatched under
its hovering wings.
This greed of New England caused indignation and alarm
in the South — the strictly agricultural section — and between
the date of the revenue statutes of 1828 and 1830, South Caro
lina, by laws passed by her legislature, proposed to resist the
enforcement of the revenue law within her borders. This was
called Nullification. The position assumed by South Carolina
was that every State, by reason of its sovereignty, had the
right to question the constitutionality of an Act of Congress^r
and could not be compelled to obey it if she decided it was
uncon^itutional. This was the ground taken by Senator
Hayne. Mr. Webster, representing the industrial States, con
tended that the Constitution provided a tribunal to decide
whether an Act of Congress is unconstitutional, and that no
State had the right to even bring in question the decision of
that tribunal, which is the Supreme Court of the United
States. Briefly stated, the above gives the contention that
was caused by Carolina's threatened Nullification.
It is not necessary to consider the question whether NulU
fication was and is a remedy under our dual government. I
say "was and is" because, if it was a lawful remedy, or means
of defense by a State, or States, against oppression, at any
time, it is a lawful remedy today. The letter of tbe Consti
tution has not been changed. Not a word in that instrument
that was in it then has been touched and not one added to

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 111
vary its meaning. This is true, also, as to Secession. The
Constitution, the only pillar that supports the federal govern
ment, and the only bond that holds the States together, is
the same to-day tbat it was in tbe beginning and was in 1860.
The war of 1861-5 did not change the reading of tbe Constitu
tion. The conquest of the South in 1865 left the legality of
Secession just wbere it was left by tbe framers df the Consti
tution in 1787. Contracts or compacts are not construed by
infantry, cavalry and artillery. War is not a judicial pro
ceeding. War cannot construe a written agreement by which
Smith delegates authority to Brown, and decide just what
Brown can do and cannot do under that authority. CiviUzed
people do not construe -writings by cannon balls, cartridges,
bayonets and dubgeons. It was said after Lee surrendered
that the war had settled the question of Secession. No lawyer
said so. No judge worthy 'to preside in a suit on one of Micaw
ber 's I. 0. U's uttered such an absurdity simply because one
man was worn out after a fight for four years witb six men.
No! The right or tbe -wrong of Secession is as quick and
active as when New England nourished it forty years as her
hope of getting a-way from the corpse of slavery she had bound
herself and the South with. "Who shall deliver me from the
body of this death" was her hypocritical cry. What I am
to consider is Mr. Webster's views of Secession as delivered in
reply to Calhoun. He submitted four propositions in opposi
tion to Calhoun's Resolutions, as expressing his opinion of the
law of the Constitution forbidding NuUification or Secession.
The first two were —
"FIRST: That the Constitution of the United States is
not a league, confederacy, or compact, between the people of
the several States in their sovereign capacities ; but a govern
ment proper, founded on the adoption of the people and creat
ing direct relations between itself and individuals."
"SECOND: That no State authority has power to dissolve
these relations; tbat nothing can dissolve them but revolution,
and that, consequently, there can be no such thing as Secession
without revolution."
It is a noteworthy fact that the man who was so careful
in the selection of words and, in nice discrimination, should

112 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
use "constitution" and "government" as convertible words.
The Constitution was a writing — a written suggestion, until
agreed to — and when agreed to it became a written contract.
It was and is in no possible sense a government. The Con-,
stitution, per se, has no vitality. It is only the foundation— ^
the ground work — on which the parties agreeing to it may
construct a government. Wben those parties come together
and erect the framework — ^when they elect tbe officers provided
for by the agreement, and the officers assume their respective i
places and proceed to perform their duties, then and theu
only is there a government. Mr. Webster was a stickler for
words, and shades of meaning, and he shied at the word ' ' com-
pact." It is not essential what we call tbe Constitution. It
is the substance, not the shadow, we must bave. He -wrote to
President Madison in the Memorial that has been quoted,
"Our attachment to the Union is to the substance not to the
form." Tbe Constitution is an agreement, a consensus, a con
tract reduced to writing. This no quibbling can evade. Why
spend so many sentences to show the Constitution was not a
compact ? Compact has no distinctively inclusive and exclus- ?
ive meaning — on the contrary, it has several synonjons. Be
sides, Mr. Calhoun caught out the quibbler by quoting the
words "constitutional compact," used by Webster in his reply ^
to Hayne. In the same sentence in proi^osition first, Webster says the
Constitution is not an agreement between the people of the
several States in their sovereign capacities. This is asserted
in the face of the f oUo^ving overwhelming proof of its falsity :
First: That each colony was acknowledged by Great
Britain as a separate State and sovereignty.
Second: That each State sent delegates to Philadelphia
to constitute the Convention tbat framed the Constitution.
Third : That the writing agreed to by those delegates was
referred back to their respective States that each State, in
convention assembled, might ratify or reject tbe writing.
Fourth: That nine States, each acting independently,
should agree to or ratify the writing before it should be bind
ing on any State.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 113
Pifth: That any State refusing to agree to or to ratify
the writing would not be bound thereby.
Sixth : Wben the -writing was received in each -State, a
convention was held in each State, acting separately, and the
writing was agreed to or ratified by each State, at different
dates, each acting within its ovra borders.
Seventh : Tbat the preamble to the Constitution says it is
"ordained and established for the United States" — ^not for
the people of the United States of America.
Eighth: Tbat tbe delegates, beaded by George Washing
ton, when signing the writing called the Constitution, said:
"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States
present, etc."
Ninth: That the tenth amendment of the Constitution
reads — "Tbe powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to tbe States, are re
served to the States, respectively, or to the people."
Tenth : Every act required by the Constitution to be done
to put tbe Federal government in motion and to keep it mov
ing was to be done by the States acting separately. Not a
single act was or is to be performed by the people of the
United States acting as and in one body.
Eleventh: Tbe word "people" occurs but five times in
the Constitution, and once in the preamble, and it is used
because the word State or States could not be. Thus — "The
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in
fringed." "The right of tbe people to be secure in their per
sons, houses, papers and effects," etc.
With this array of declarations bristling like bayonets against
him, he was forced back on the preamble for a weapon of at
tack. Tn one of bis speeches, in which the Revolution of '76
was under review, he said, "We" (the people of the colonies)
"went to war against a preamble." In this debate he seems
to have become enamoured witb the audacity of our Revolu
tionary heroes, and to bave taken their success as an augury
of victory for himself; for he "went to war" witb his two
vaUant opponents with tbe preamble to the Constitution as a
weapon of attack. And, marvelous to tell, while he was ut
terly overwhelmed by the close-knitted logic of Calhoun, he

114 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
was proclaimed the victor by the protected classes whose hearts
and hopes of future plunder were in a consolidated govern
ment. Tn his second, proposition quoted above, Mr. Webster said,
"there can be no such thing as Secession without Revolu
tion." This leads to the main question I purpose to consider.
To undei-stand the issue we must look at the political, social
and economic situation in tbe United States as it was in the
year 1830. I mean social to cover the sectional relations and
the slavery agitation. It is necessary to group some data that
bave been irregularly strewn along these pages, in order to
understand their significance and importance in arriving at a
correct judgment. The issue and the only real issue inyolved
is the correct construction of tbe meaning of the "United States
Constitution on the sole question of Secession as a reserved
right of each of the original thirteen States.
1. The government in 1830 had been in operation forty-
one years.
2. The construction of tbe Constitution by its framers
that any State, for justifiable cause, to be decided by it, had
the reserved right to withdraw from the Union.
3. The construction by the generation foUo-wing the fram
ers of the Constitution was tbat any State had tbat right.
These two facts were made part of history:
a. By the ordinance of New York and Virginia when they
ratified and adopted the United States Constitution ; ,
b. By the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and
1799, declaring the right of withdrawal or Secession;
c. The assembly of New England's leading men in Wash
ington in 1804 to discuss the advisability of Secession ;
d. The speech of Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts in Con
gress in 1811, advocating Secession;
e. The Hartford Convention (1814) composed of dele
gates from the New England States to consider the advisability
of Secession on account of the war of which those States
disapproved :
f. Mr. Webster's declaration in 1812, by and in the quoted
Memorial to President Madison, favored separation as a
remedy;

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 115
g'. Secession as a remedy taught in Rawle's book on the
Constitution at West Point Military Academy;
h. The construction of the Constitution by tbe entire
South, from 1789, that peaceable Secession was a right of
eveiy State; ^
I i. The construction of the Constitution by the people of
the North, down to 1833, that peaceable Secession was a right
of every State;
j. That Secession as a right was taught in every channel
of communication, including tbe pulpits at the North. I have
already cited the written teaching of Rev. Wm. E. Chaiming,
New England's leading aboUtioiust and theologian. He taught
prior to 1833.
k. The statement of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massa
chusetts in his "Life of Daniel Webster," page 176. Speak
ing of Webster's reply to Hayne, he writes :
"The weak places in bis (Webster's) armor were historical
in their nature. It was probably necessary, at all events Mr.
Webster felt it to be so, to argue that the Constitution at the
outset was not a compact between the States, but a national
in^tmniieifjt, and to distinguish the, eases of Virginia and Ken
tucky in 1799, and of New England in 1814 from tbat of South
Carolina in 1830. Th^ foriif^r point he touched on lightly, the
latter he discussed ably, eloquently, ingeniously, and at length.
Unfortunately the facts were against him in both instances!
When tbe Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at
Philadelphia and accepted by tbe votes of States in popular
conventions, it is safe to say that there was not a man in the
country, from Washington and Hamilton on one side ('federal
ists'), to George Clinton and George Mason on the other side
('democrats'), who regarded the new system as anything but
an experiment entered upon by the States and from which
each and every State bad the right peaceably to withdraw; a
right which was very Ukely to be exercised. When the Vir
ginia and Kentucky Resolutions appeared they were not op
posed on constitutional grounds, but on those of expediency
and of hostility to tbe revolution they were supposed to em
body. Hamilton, and no one knew the Constitution better
than he, treated them as tbe beginning of an attempt to change

116 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
the government. * * * What is true of 1799 is true of
the New England leaders^ Washington wben they discussed
the feasibility of Secession in 1804 ; of the declaration in favor
of Secession by Josiah Quincy in Congress a few years later;
of the resistance of New England during the war of 1812, and
of the right of 'interposition' set forth by tbe Hartford Con
vention. Tn all these instances no one troubled himself about
the constitutional aspect; it was a question of expediency, or
moral or political right or ¦wrong. * * *
"When South Carolina began ber resistance to the tariff
of 1830 times had changed, and ¦with them the popular concep
tion of the government established by the Constitution. It was
a much more serious thing to threaten the existence of the
Federal Govemment than it had been in 1799, or even in 1814,
The theory of Nullification had not altered in its essence from
the bold and brief statement of the Kentucky Resolutions.
The vast change had come on the other side of tbe question,'
in the popular idea of the Constitution."
Mr. Lodge is, probably, the most congruous and reliable
authority on this issue that New England could produce. He
is a scholar, a historian, an American, a New Englander by
birth and exclusive devotion, a Bostonese, a qualified admirer
of Daniel Webster and a vociferous eulogist of the Puritans.
It is important that his statement just quoted shall be remem
bered. It is history by a partisan who believes New England
is as much above the South as old England is superior to Tur
key. He is the Senator who made the last effort to put the
Southern whites back again under negro rule, or to put the
two races on social equality. He is a great-grandson of the
President of the Hartford Convention, at which Mr. Webster
held his nose when Hayne produced the record of it in the
Senate. Tbe important facts in Mr. Lodge's statement are:
1st. That the historical facts were against Mr. Webster's
contention. 2nd. That the constmction of the Constitution before 1830
was practicaUy unanimous in favor of tbe right to secede ; but
3rd. That in 1830 "times had changed and, with them, the
popular conception of the government established by the Con-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 117
stitution. A vast change bad come, on the other side of tha
question, in tbe popular idea of the Constitution."
Yes, three vast changes had come. Mr. Webster entered
Congress in 1812 an advocate of Free Trade. Before 1824 he
changed to a Protectionist. The second change was by New
England on the tariff. She had become a strong Protectionist.
The statutes of 1816, 1824 and 1828 demonstrated to her that
there were mUlions in "Protection" for ber. Presto — came
the change! The third change was from advocacy of Seces
sion by the North to advocacy of a consolidated Union, or a
nation, and opposition to Secession, Nullification or any act
of dismemberment. A soUd, indivisible Union was the field
New England longed to reap. And she has never ceased to
skin it to this hour.
On this collect of indisputable facts I submit a few reflec
tions. Each colony acting separately selected its ¦wisest men
and commissioned them to meet in Convention and to draft a
¦written constitution to be submitted to the States, severally,
for approval, or rejection. Mr. Lodge states the historical
fact that each State, acting alone, chose its delegates, and each
State, in convention, acting alone, voted to accept or reject.
The -writing thus proposed and agreed to was and is a legal
document. It is an expression by thirteen sovereigns. It was
made for but one purpose. Tbat was to appoint a common
agent to perform for the beneflt of each and all the States
certain acts which can be done by one better than by thirteen.
To do this service, each principal, being a sovereign, dele
gated to the common agent the right to exercise certain pow
ers that each, singly, possessed by reason of its sovereignty.
Not one sovereign attribute or power was surrendered by the
thirteen States." Each delegated the exercise of certain pow
ers. It is an absurdity to say tbat each State surrendered,
or gave away certain powers. A sovereign is invested with
all imaginable governmental powers. The word "sovereign"
admits no other meaning. Any other signification is impossi
ble in the nature of things.. The monient a sovereign parts
with — gives away irrevocably — one attribute, or power, that
moment he or it ceases to be sovereign. A part of a whole
cannot be taken away and the whole still be left intact. The

118 TRUE VIJSfDICATION OF THE SOUTH
thought alone involves a mathematical absurdity. It is not
conceivable thai; the thirteen States intended and deliberately
plotted to di^\rest themselves of sovereignty, and to xaise their
agent to the exalted position of sovereign over them. Let it
be supposed, however, that they did so intend. The result ac-
cornplished, on this supposition, was the destruction of thir
teen sovereignties, and the faUure to construct another so^ver-
eigntyout of their attributes or ruins. In other words, thir
teen sovereign States entered into a compact to commit sui
cide together — ^nine to die first and the others to foUo^w, or to
back out as they should decide, each for itself.
The words "power" and "powers" as used in the Consti
tution, were employed by the ¦wise men who framed that in
strument in the sense of "exercise of," as, foi? instancq, that
"Congress shaU exercise the power to declare war," etc.

CHAPTER XVn.
FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE REPLY
TO CALHOUN.
It will throw Ught on this inquiry to suppose certain propo
sitions to have been made during the long deliberations on
the paper called a "Constitution." Suppose a member of
that convention had offered the following — "Resolved, that
each State in conferring the powers enumerated herein on
the Government that is to exercise said powers, surrenders its
sovereignty, pro tanto, to said government."
Suppose the following proposed: "Resolved, that the exer
cise of the sovereign powers hereby conferred shall be irre-
vocabljy binding on each State, without redress."
Suppose this proposition had been offered: "Resolved,
that the only remedy for a minority, in the event the major
ity in Congress shall le^vy heavy duties on imports tbat enrich
one section of the Uniop, or class of citizens, and lays heavy
burdens on the other sections or citizens, shall be through and
by Revolution."
Suppose that this bad been proposed : "Resolved, that the
Union of the States that shall be formed under this Constitu
tion shall be forever and inseparable ; and no injustice, by vio
lation of any of its provisions, done to a minority of the peo
ple by a majority, shall be just cause for Secession, or with
drawal of one or more States from the Union, even though
the injustice be not justiflable by any judicial tribunal; and
that such withdrawal shall be adjudged revolution and
treason!" Is there a sane man who will say be believes that any one
of the foregoing supposed Resolutions coiUd have been
a,dopted? If so, does be not know that not one State would
have ratified the work of its delegates, and that there never
could have been a Union pf the States?

120 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
I have said that one must stand in tbe year 1830-3 to con
sider fairly Mr. Webster's view of the Constitution. I have
given the general construction. North and South, of the Con
stitution before that year, to-wit: that Secession was con
ceded to be a peaceable /remedy. I have shown that Mr. Web
ster so believed in 1812, and no word from bis lips shows a
change of opinion until he replied to Mr. Calhoun in 1833. I
bave sho^wn that even Alexander Hamilton did not question, j;
the right of withdrawal.
The feeling that heated the debate was sectional, but the
issue rose higher than parties or sections. The question was —
what says the Constitution? If it be silent, what could be
said or done? Mr. Webster was sitting in the Senate as a,
Judge. He had to construe a legal document. It was a con
tract, or an agreement, or a covenant, or a compact, entered
into by thirteen sovereign States. The instrument contained-,
no word about nor allusion to nullification or secession. The
Judicial mind alone could reflect the light to iUumine the text.
And the rules to guide Judges in construing ¦writings are the
same in our mother country and in this, and are applied by all
courts, federal. State, Supreme, and the lowest courts. Briefly,
they are (1) : That words shall be given the meaning com
monly given and understood, except 'words of the Arts or
Sciences which must be construed as employed by artists or
scientists in their technical sense ; (2) : The meaning of the
contracting parties must be found and must control; (3) : No.
word can be read into the writing except it be necessary to
keep the purpose of tbe writing from failing; and not at aU
unless the word evidently suppUes the meaning of the parties.
This rule applies to wills and deeds, and also to all classes of
contracts. It is readily seen that not one of the foregoing standard
rules for construction of aU writings applies to the Constitu- ;
tion. There is not one ambiguous word in it. There is not a
word required to make sense and clear meaning. Mr. Web
ster bad not an ell, nor a barley-corn of groimd in the Con- '
stitution to stand on as a base for his replies to Hayne and
Calhoun. He can nowhere find permission or inhibition as to

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 121
nulUfication or secession. As this is a ease of delegated author
ity, another rule of construction comes in here. It is this :
In construing any instrument executed by a sovereign,
delegating the exercise of a sovereign's powers, no construc
tion is permissible to enlarge the grant beyond the express,
plain language contained in the document; because, sover
eignty cannot have its attributes abridged by implication. The
Puritans were constantly claiming powers not named in their
charter granted by Charles 1st, and that was the source of
their incessant troubles with their kings and every ruler ex
cept Cromwell. This exaction they kept up in every relation
until 1833, when Webster, speaking for them and as their
counsel, found fault witb tbe Constitution, and read into it
what the sovereigns never imagined or thought of. After forty
years of unanimous construction and general content with
that view of the federal charter, be, without legal authority,
and in violation of all rules for construing writings, and after
he had been driven by Calhoun from the Constitution, on
which he tried to make a stand, back to tbe preamble where
he took refuge in "We the people of the United States," he
at last resorted to tbe unauthorized declaration, or ipse dixit,
that Secession is prohibited and caimot be effected without
Revolution — ^without war.
His construction by implication, applied to the acts of
sovereigns, is a barbarism in the Law. In other words, it is
not known; is not recognized by Judges and lawyers. It is
inferable that, if Mr. Webster bad been as able a jurist as
advocate, and bad been a free man, those two speeches would
not have been delivered. His assumption puts the framers
of the Constitution and all the other statesmen who discussed
it by pen and in the thirteen conventions, in tbe position of
ignoramuses; that is, they did not know the attributes of
sovereignty; or he, by his own reasoning, puts himself in that
position. But he knew every attribute as well as be knew
every letter in the alphabet. The truth is that there was no
dispute, no trouble, no misunderstanding until the protected
manufacturers appeared on tbe scene, through their bought
counsel and advocate, who read words into the Constitution
to suit their economic aims and interests. A large number

122 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
of Northern people whose withers were wrung because their
fathers had stolen and bought negroes in Africa and enslaved
them, and who were just pious enough to believe and to fear
that the sins of their fathers would be visited on them, had
already becoine dissatisfied ¦with the Constitution because it
recognized negro slaves as property and' made no provision for
future emancipation. They welcomed any new view of or change
in the Constitution though it might not even remotely relate
to slavery. These were the blood-thirsty but timorous scouts
just in advance of tbe boisterous line of patriot-mai*tyrs that
soon appeared bearing a banner with the strange de^vice—
"The Constitution is an agreement with Death and a Covenant
with HeU." They joined tbe protected pensioners in proclaim
ing Webster's new Constitution and the entire North sooii
adopted and ratified it.
I return tp the framers of the Constitution. That they
did not understand tbeii: business and duty, was not imagined
by any one until Mr. Webster called their immortal §hades to
account. He contended that as they did not insert in the
Constitution in express terms the right to nullify and the right
to secede, therefore, neither right exists. This position is in
direct line of descent from the Puritan rule of evidence that
the old women and young girls when arraigned before Cotton
Mather's high civil, ecclesiastical and criminal court, on
charges of being witches, were required to prove they were
innocent. Tf they could not, the charge alone was proof posi
tive, and they had to die. Thirteen sovereigns, each acting
through thirteen sets of separate delegates, it was contended,
must make a positive declaration that the States intended to
reserve and did reserve the right to nullify or to secede, in
order to entitle them, or any one or more of them, to exercise
that right. This reverses the rule of construction that noth
ing shall be inferred against a sovereign in construing his
grant of the exercise of one or more of his powers.
Let us foUo-w Mr. Webster's contention to its logical coli-
Sequences. The Constitution is silent on the right of a State,
to secede, therefore, he says', that right does not exist, not
withstanding the tenth amendment thereto reads — "The -poif- 1
ers not delegated to the United States by the Constitutioi'l '

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 123
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to tbe people." It is sufficient to say that
the States were in convention in their sovereign capacity, to
appoint a common agent, and all they bad to do was to say
which of their respective sovereign powers they were willing
to intrust the agent with tbe exercise of, and to what extent.
They were not there to say what the powers and rights of
each State were. The delegates knew that each State, ex
vigore termini, was possessed of aU powers and rights that
can belong to a State, or to any monarch, king, emperor, or
czar: The delegates did agree that certain rights and powers
of the States should not be exercised by them during the Ufe
of their agent. They agreed to tie their hands as to a few
sovereign powers, so as not to interfere witb their agent in
executing tbe powers entrusted to it. The restraints the States
laid on themselves are in Section 10 of Article 1 of the Con
stitution. The exercise of fifteen powers named in this ^Sec
tion the States surrendered, but nearly all these bad already
been entrusted to their agent, in and by Section 9.
The first Congress, 1789, proposed ten amendments to the
States, which were readily adopted. Among them the tenth
Article is as follows: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by tbe Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to tbe
people." This article was not necessary, for tbe reason given
above, ¦viz., tbe exercise of a sovereign power by another must
be by express grant and in plain terms. This article was in
serted in tbe Constitution through the extreme caution of the
people of each State. They were already jealous of the broad
authority of their agent and they decided to reUeve the ques
tion of any doubt. No language was ever clearer ; no enuncia
tion was ever more positive and determinate. And it was
spoken by thirteen sovereigns.
While NulUfication was the proximate cause of quarrel in
1830-3, tbe real issue was federaUsm against democracy; strict
constmction against Uberal constmction of the Constitution,
or State-rights against centralization of power in the federal
govemment. The seat of federalism from 1787 has been in
the Eastern States, because the mouth of the government's

124 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
cornucopia has always poured its ingots over tbat favored
territory. Mr, Webster, to the manner bom and representing the
favored few in whose pay he was, could not be otherwise than
"like master like man." With the master the States were
secondary — only means to the end. The end was and is a
strong consoUdated government. "It was to be tbe sheaf to
stand up" and tbe thirteen States tbe other sheaves "to stand
around about and make obeisance to it. ' '
But such was not the view taken by the deputies of the
thirteen States, as the whole scheme they planned for a federal
government plainly shows. They put the government to be
formed under the Constitution, subservient to the States. The
rights and powers of tbe States were watchfully guarded as
will appear by a brief analysis of the Constitution:
1st. The erection and operation and continuance of the
federal government, the deputies, led \by Washington, made
dependent on the will of tbe States.
2nd. The three departments, executive, legislative and
judicial, live or perish, as the States may decide.
3rd. The States control the franchise. Without this exer
cise not a wheel of government can move.
4th. Tbe voters of each State must choose electors, the
electors must elect. They must vote in a prescribed form for
one to be President, for another to be Vice-President, and send
a certificate of their action to the President of the U. S.
Senate. 5th. Should the voters in the States that have, when com
bined, a majority of the presidental electors, decline to choose
electors, the executive department of the U. S. government
would be dead.
6th. The Executive alone can nominate men to the Sen
ate to be Judges of the Supreme Court, the appellate and the
district courts. So that, if there be no President, there can
not be a federal Judge, and, of course, there can be no court.
7th. Tbe voters of each State elect men who compose the
House of Representatives in Congress. The same voters elect j
members of the State legislature and the latter, in turn, elect

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 125
U. S, Senators. Without this action by each State, there can
not be a Congress, and the third legislative department is
destroyed. The deputies were far-seeing. They did not fail to fore
cast the future of the government they were framing the
material to buUd. They were not constructing an autonomy
— a sovereignty — ^to take the place of the States. They were
studying to create an agency tbat could perform certain acts
for the benefit of the whole, better, in every sense, than the
thirteen acting separately could perform them. This was the
scope of their commission, and they did not transgress its
limit. There are four praiseworthy provisions in restriction of
the exercise of the war-power given by the Constitution. The
first is that no money shaU be appropriated to support an
army for a period longer than two years; and the second is
that the right to appoint the officers of the militia and of
training them was reserved to the States respectively. The
third is that the President must call on the Governors for
troops. The fourth is: If, in voting for President no person have
a majority of the electoral votes, and the election must
be made by the House of Representatives, the vote shaU be
taken by States — each State having but one vote.
Here we have four distinct proofs of the recognition of
very important State rights, to-wit: 1st, control of the purse
in the support of armies ; 2nd, tbe exclusive right of the gover
nors of States to appoint officers of the militia and to drill the
men; 3rd, the right of the governor to refuse to send troops;
and, 4th, the right of the smallest State to have an equal voice
with the greatest in selecting a President. Each of the four
is an assertion by each State of its sovereignty.
There is an expression sometimes used by lawyers and
judges when speaking of the power of the United States, and
of each State. It is tbat each is sovereign in its own sphere.
In my bumble opinion the history of the thirteen States and
of the United States government denies its correctness. That
each of the thirteen States was sovereign when acknowledged
by Great Britain no one can question. That the government

126 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH^ '.
of the United States is not and never was sovereign is equally
clear. Sovereignty does not abide in the govemment — in the
machinery by which the people transact business, or affairs of
State. Sovereignty abides in the people — ^the cpmmimity-i- ,;
who constitute the corporation, or entity, called the State.
There were thirteen sovereign peoples in North America ia
the year 1787, who, by separate action, at different dates or
times, in different localities, decided to adopt the Constitu
tion and to erect a government in pursuance of its provisions.
They were the creator, and the government under the Con
stitution was their creature, or, of their creation. Now, the
creature is not the equal of its creator. If the creator were
sovereign the creature could not be sovereign. If the creature
were sovereign, it coiUd do all that any sovereign can do. If
sovereign, it became so by the laying on of bands of its creator.
But the sovereign States could not impart to the creature a
part of their sovereignty and remain sovereign. It is the very
essence of sovereignty tbat it is a unit — an integer — one and
indivisible. A sovereign may depute authority to exercise
one or more of bis powers, as is done daily by appointmenif
of ambassadors, but the power is still in the sovereign. The
thirteen States delegated to the U. S. Goveimment the right
to exercise some of their sovereign powers — ^nothing more. So
far were the States from granting to their creature any of
their sovereign powers, that they expressly provided a plan
by which, at ¦will, they not oiUy can change, alter, retract, or
take away any of the authority delegated, but they can by
vote revoke all authority and destroy their creature. More
than that, they, as I have shown, by non-action, by refusmg
to elect federal officers, can leave the vaimted sovereign power
to perish in a night.
But there is still another view, that, to my mind, is con
clusive against the claim of any sovereignty in the United
States. I, must repeat what has been said several times, in
order to make the view open and clear, to-wit: That the
thirteen States were sovereign before they ratified the Con
stitution. Each of the thirteen States was composed of a
separate, distinct people who constituted the sovereign State.
Those peoples taken thus separately were the same people

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 127
who were kno^wn as the people and citizens of the United
States, taken coUectively. The people who constituted and
managed and controUed the State governments were the identi
cal people who constituted, managed and controlled the United
States govemment. If the people of the United States, taken
en masse, bad any sovereign powers they could only get them
from the same people who, taken singly as States, possessed
complete sovereign powers. But the two peoples, by States
and en masse, are one and the same. Therefore, it was impossi7
ble for the thirteen sovereign States to confer any sovereign
powers on themselves as a mass. The Sovereignty, as said be
fore, does not pertain to paper documents, not to the machin
ery of government. It belongs to and springs from the people
organized for government.
Another view will bring out the transparent absurdity of
the suggestion tbat, under our dual exercise of governmental
powers, tbe sovereign States bestowed, or even tried to bestow,
any sovereignty on tbe federal government. To simplify the
view I wiU take two States, Virginia and Maryland, as the
only States in tbe convention of 1787. When the people of
Virginia and Maryland, who were admittedly sovereign the
moment they achieved their independence of George III and
of ParUament, were in convention by deputies to frame a Con
stitution, and afterward each assembled in convention to ratify
the work of their deputies, they, acting separately, adopted it.
George Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Monroe, Pat
rick Henry and other Virginians in convention representing the
sovereignty of Virginia, and Luther Martin, Daniel Carroll,
John Hanson, James McHenry, et al.,- representing the so-ver-
eignty of Maryland, agreed to and adopted the Constitution.
The twelve amendments were added by 1803, and the Constitu
tion then stood as it was in 1830, when Mr. Webster was ex
pounding it. By bis contention each State conferred on the two
States that were united imder the Constitution a part of its
sovereign powers— that is, each stripped itseK of powers the
very essence of sovereignty, whereby they ceased to be sover
eign and became dependencies. They were sovereigns m sub
jection, thraldom, abject obedience, without remedy, to a super
ior created by themselves. Such was the bondage, the vassal-

128 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
age, the voluntary subjection of these two quondam sovereigns
to their creature, that should Maryland, for what she con
sidered oppression by the creature, withdraw from the aUi-,
ance with Virginia, the creature — ^using the miUtia of Virginia
and Maryland — could invade Maryland with armies, shoot
down her citizens, and force her back into the aUianee. The
creature, it must not be forgotten, is not a State, has no sover
eignty, is dependent on the people of the two States for its
officers, its army and navy, and money to pay expenses-^for
everything it has. It caimot have a President, Judge, or legis
lature without the consent and action of tbe voters of the two
States.

CHAPTER XVm.
WEBSTER'S QUIBBLING ON WORDS.
Mr. Webster said, in the debate with Calhoun, "I do not
agree that the Constitution is a compact between the States
in their sovereign capacities." In reply to Hayne he said,
"The agreement between the States is a constitutional com
pact." Can any logician bring these two opinions into
harmony? He said in reply to Calhoun, "The Constitution
is not a contract, but the result of a contract, meaning by
contract no more than assent. Founded on consent, it is a
government proper."
What are we to imderstand when he says "the Constitu
tion foimded on consent is a gofvemment proper?" By no
possible construction or imagination can a constitution be a
government. There may be a government without a constitu
tion, and a constitution without a government. The constitu
tion was consented to by nine States, and was in force as a
contract for nearly two years before there was a federal govern
ment. It is impossible for a constitution to be or to constitute
a government. Throughout the debate witb Hayne and Cal
houn, Mr, Webster repeatedly confounded government and
constitution. They are in no sense identical, or synonyms,
"The Constitution is not a contract but the result of a
contract. The people agreed to make a constitution, but
when made tbat constitution becomes what its name imports, ' '
That is to say, when the constitution is made it is a constitu
tion. That is, when a thing is, it is. That is undeniable, but
it sounds Uke Dogberry's logic. It is worse than reasoning
in a circle, for that can mislead, but this proposition is self-evi
dent to a child.
But to say that the Constitution is not a contract, but tbe
result of a contract, is an absurdity. When did the people
of the United States, or of the States, contract to make the
Constitution? When and where?, How was the contract to
make a contract, or compact, indicated, or expressed? "The

130 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
people of tbe United States agreed" — ^he lugs in here the fal
lacy, or false premise he found in the preamble to the Con
stitution, to-wit: "We tbe people of tbe United States," ete.
He knew too weU what constitutes a contract, to-wit : parties
willing to contract, able to contract and who actually do con
tract. When the people of each State agreed to send deputies to
Philadelphia to prepare a paper, if they could agree on one,
to be submitted to the people of each State for them to decide
to accept or reject it, was that a contract ? The deputies were
not authorized to bind the States by what they — the deputies
— might agree to. Therefore, what they said or did at Phila
delphia was not a contract. It was of no more effect than a
suggestion, a consultation, a proposition that the deputies
considered would be satisfactory to their respective principals. ^
If rejected their labor was in vain. If accepted there would
be a contract — a constitution. Where, then, was the contract
that the Constitution was the result of? Mr, Webster con
tended that two contracts were made — one was the parent,
the second was the offspring — that is — ^the Constitution, But
be quibbles on words. He says the Constitution was not a
contract — ^it was tbe Constitution, and it was not a contract
nor a compact, nor an agreement. He says tbe people of the
United States, as one undistinguishable body or mass, as of
one nation, first agreed to make a constitution and that was
the contract from which resulted the constitution. When the
basic premise of a syllogism is false, aU that follows must be
false. It is evident that Mr, Webster had reflected for years, and
ad profundum, on the question made by South Carolina be
fore the debate began. He knew it was coming and he put
on the armor be had picked up when it fell from the shoulders
of Achilles on tbe bloody ground of Hoboken. He looked
do^wn tbe line of battle and surveyed the field with a master's
eye, to find an impregnable position. Dropping the figure— I 1
am convinced he did not neglect to bring to bear the Law of
Nations on the powers and rights of each State as a Sovereign.
Finding no tenable ground there for him to occupy, he re
viewed carefully the Constitution, and found it bristling with

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 131
hostUe abattis as thick as quills on the fretful porcupine. There
was but one point d'appui that offered bim a footing. That
point was the preamble of the Constitution, As I bave al
ready shown, he was like tbe feudal villain who was under
bond to fight for his Baron whenever called upon. He bad
no choice of baimers — ^the right or tbe wrong of the casus belli
was aU one to him. He had been bought with a price to serve
in fetters, and in fetters he was bound to deliver on demand
the best he held in stock, or could procure. He was not a free
man. He must serve bis master, or masters. Puritan greed
had sought him because he was New England's Chrysostom,
and the pagan devotees of Mammon, like the strange woman —
"In the evening, in the twiUght, in the black and dark
lught, with much fair speech caused him to yield; with the
flattering of their lips they forced bim,"
And as the sequel reveals, like "the young man void of
understanding, who, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or a
fool to the correction of tbe stocks," he chose tbe "bed decked
with coverings of tapestry, with fine linen, and perfume of
myrrh, aloes and cinnamon;" and the victim of the pagan de
votees, wben he stretched forth bis feeble hands and
raised his failing voice to save the Uiuon be so dearly loved,
was saluted with jeers, scorn and contempt, and anathe
matized as another Benedict Arnold, and hounded to his
grave. With this explanation of the manacled condition Mr, Web
ster was in when the debate opened, we can understand why
he was forced to take a position he was unable to maintain.
He saw, as expressed by Senator Lodge, that the facts were
against him. The Law of Nations was against him. The
Constitution, in letter and spirit, was against him. Its case
ment of gold was studded all over with those jewels — ^richer
and rarer than diamonds and rubies — "The States," "The
States." He could not resort to the Law of Nations because
he would therein encounter the Sovereignty of each State.
He would be compeUed to admit that the Constitution was a
compact between thirteen sovereigns, and place himseK at
the mercy of Hayne and Calhoun. His oiUy recourse, as al
ready said, was to assert boldly, brazenly and hopelessly, m

132 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
the frowning face of the Constitution, and of its history rebuk
ing him, tbat the people as a mass, ¦without regard for State
lines and jurisdiction, and their sovereign rights and powers,
bad acted as one body in framing and adopting the Constitu
tion. But, to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's,"
it must be said that such was the power and skUl of this
Herculean gladiator, battling manacled and fettered, with the
odds against him, although under the rapier thrusts of Hayne
and the carving by the Damascus blade of Calhoun, he fell
"bleeding at every pore," he "made the worse appear the
better reason" and persuaded the sympathizing populace of
the North that he had gained the victory.
And this adjudication by the Puritan populace was not
the first final judgment that bad been banded dovpn by that
august and terrible tribunal. These Judges presided in the
Coliseum and when they turned do^wn their thumbs the thirsty
sand drank tbe bot blood of barbarian captives. These Puri^'
tan Judges presided when the great question involving Divin
ity — "ShaU I release unto you this man in whom I have found
no fault?" Was submitted to them by Pilate for their irrevoc
able decision. And these Judges shouted — "Away with this
man, and release unto us Barabbas." These Puritan Judges
presided in Paris over the deliberations of the Assembly, di
rected the counsels of the Committee of Safety, and pro
nounced final judgment from which there was no appeal. They
even marched in the wake of the busy impartial tumbril that
rumbled over the stones of Paris, freighted, now with a King,
now a patriot, now ¦with a pauper, and then with a Queen.
A few of these Judges attended, carrying their knitting, and
sat in the shadow of Madame Guillotine, to see tbat their de
crees did not fail. These are tbe same Puritan Judges who
established slavery in Massachusetts in 1703 by statute, and?
refused, after many attempts, running through eighty years,
to abolish it by statute; and at some hazy unrecorded date
between 1776 and 1836, adjudged it abolished "by the decla
ration of Independence," or by decision of Lord Mansfield in
the case of the negro, Somerset, in England in 1772, or by
the "Bill of Rights" in tbe constitution of Massachusetts
adopted 1780, "or by public opinion" (the populace). These

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 183
are the Puritan Judges who, for many years, punished alleged
criminals whose offenses were not defined by law, nor to
which was any defined penalty affixed — ^the discretion of these
Puritan Judges being the only limit. Says Mr. Moore in bis
"Notes," — "Public opinion, at once tbe Great Ruler, Law
Giver and Judge of the Anglo-Saxon Race (the Puritans) has
held its throne and seat nowhere more firmly than in Massa
chusetts. The slave was emancipated by the force of 'public
opinion,' and the same authority, without the absolute decla
ration of forms of law, continued (after such emancipation)
to exclude the negro from actual, practical equality of civil
and poUtical as weU as social rights." He adds, "The fact
that Daniel Webster had not been able a few years before
his death to determine the question satisfactorily is pretty
good evidence that it was doubtful." The Constitution they
adopted in 1780 was sUent on slavery. It read — "No part of
the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken
from him, or appUed to public uses, without his consent, or
that of the representative body of the people," and "no sub
ject (citizen) shaU be deprived of his property but by the
judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. ' ' At tbat time
slaves valued at a haK-million dollars were owned in Massa
chusetts, and the next year were advertised as usual in a
Boston paper for sale.
But that omnipotent "Lawgiver — ^pubUc opinion" — "tbe
popxdace," assembled in the shops, on the wharves in the cod-
fisheries and slums, and sat on the question, and -wrote into
the silent Constitution, -with invisible ink — "negro slavery is
hereby abolished." Before this was issued, the negro slaves
in the Puritan Commonwealth bad disappeared to reappear in
warmer latitudes. Meantime, these Puritan Judges, whose
ancestors presided over Destiny on the high Bench in the
Coliseum, but whose near kin, as history discloses, were the
Judiciary in Paris during "The Reign of Terror," had, in spare
moments when not sacrificing to Mammon, taken up th^ pre
amble to tbe federal Constitution and fotmd -written between
the lines the declaration that Nullification and Secession were
treason to be punished with death. And Daniel Webster, the
expounder, par excellence, of that marvel of human wisdom.

134 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
adopted, for a valuable as well as blood consideration, the
interpretation put on it by his Puritan kin. It is with this
senator and statesman, and with with the populace, innocent
and ignorant of the laws — ^international and constitutional-^
that we bave our cause of quarrel, and I now resume my
humble effort to show his fatal error. I have quoted what he
said the people had done in the three years between his reply
to Hayne and his reply to Calhoun. The question which, as I
have said, in my opinion, remains as unsettled as it was in
1787, is so momentous, that I beg to be excused for repeating
here a few of Mr. Webster's opening words:
"There has been a time wben, rising in this place, on the
same question, T felt, T must confess, that something for good
or evil to the Constitution of the country might depend on an
effort of mine. But circumstances have changed. Since that
day. Sir, public opinion has become awakened to this
great question ; it has reasoned upon it as becomes an intelli
gent and patriotic community, and has settled it, or now seems
in the progress of settling it, by an authority which none can
disobey — the authority of tbe people themselves."
Tn the history of debates, in aU ages, no speaker, in my
opinion, has ever, within tbe compass of so few words, passed
such a withering judgment of condemnation on himseK, or
made such a damaging confession in open court. One or the
other of the two conclusions those words make inevitable is,-
either Mr. Webster was not tbe learned lawyer Fame had
crowned him as being, or, if such a great lawyer, he spoke as
a purchased advocate. I shall endeavor, to make the truth so
plain that those who are not la-wyers -wiU see it clearly. Should
I fail my weakness will be responsible and not the facts and
the law.
There was no Union of the States before the Constitution
was adopted. The preceding Confederacy was not a Union.
It is clear tbat the Constitution was the bond that brought
the States together. It is equally true that the Constitution
was then and is now the only force that holds the States
together. Tf it were repealed to-morrow there would be no
Union^ because it alone commands what must be done to keep
the federal government in operation. Tf there were no federal

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 185
government there could be no Union. Tbe States would auto
matically return to tbe position each held among the family
of nations before the Constitution drew them together; and
as each returned to its original position, it would carry with
it unimpaired every attribute of sovereignty and tbe free exer
cise of every attribute. It is undeniable that each State be
fore the Union was as perfect a sovereign as ever existed
under any name or having any form. Each State, being sover
eign, was necessarUy a law unto itseK. Tbe reason for this is
the same on which the Apostle based his remark that "the
heathen is a law unto himseK." It is because he was in a
state of nature, and, as an individual, there was no law but
the law of nature that bound or controlled him. Each State
was independent of all laws except those that bind a man in
a state of nature, tbat is, before be unites with other men for
purposes to be agreed upon by them. Each State, being an
entity like a man in a state of nature, was bound by no laws
except those tbat control nations in their outward relations,
that is to say in their relations to each other, and those laws
are what nations have agreed to be just, humane and equitable,
and which are compiled under the title "The Law of Nations."
AU other laws of a Sovereign are those for internal economy,
or poUty, and which a Sovereign makes by himself, or by some
agency to which the Sovereign delegates his or its power to
enact law for him or the people and for the government of
his subjects or its citizens. Thus a State or nation is gov
erned by two codes of laws — one operating exclusively within,
the other operating beyond its geographical borders. Just
what are the powers, rights and privileges of a nation or State
has not been definitely determined and catalogued. Those at
tributes arise from nature just as do tbe privileges, right, et
cetera, of a man in a state of nature. It is difficult to state
them on paper. However, ¦without poetic license, it may be
said, "he is monarch of all he surveys" until other men ap
pear on the scene, Vattel in his standard work, "The Law
of Nations" says, among his "Preliminaries,"—
"Nations or States, being composed of men naturally free
and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil
societies, Uved together in a state of nature," "Nations, or

136 TRUE VINDICATION bF THE SOUTH
sovereign States, are to be considered as so many free persons
living together in a state of nature,"
Every man in a state of nature is under obligations to
other men, imposed by nature, which he must discharge. These
obligations impose duties. As every man by nature has the
right to life, liberty and happiness, he is under obligations
to all men Uving in a state of nature not to do anything to
deprive any other man of those rights. And this law of
nature is the fundamental law tbat binds every nation. State,
or sovereignty in any form. Nations, therefore, are aggrega
tions of men living as to each other in a state of nature. There
is no other law by which they are or can be governed, so long
as they remain separate, or do not change their natural status
by voluntary act.

CHAPTER XIX.
THE FACTS WERE AGAINST WEBSTER.
There exists throughout the Noi^b, and especially in that
most enUghtened region where fanaticism and avarice are the
infaUible interpreters of right and wrong, what seems to be a
very indefinite idea of a sovereign, or of what constitutes
sovereignty. This vague conception has already cost the sacri
fice of a miUion Uves and five billion dollars. This was tbe
cash installment paid daily during four years. The money —
probably a hundred-bilUons — the producers and skilled labor
have paid since 1865 to the New England philanthropists for
standing on guard to protect them from foreign paupers, is
not and never can be known. I shall endeavor to throw some
Ught on the nature of sovereignty, especially of th© sover
eignty of our States.
Vattel, on page 2, of "Law of Nations." says: "Every
nation that governs itseK, under what form soever, without
dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State," It
is important to bear, in mind that there can not be a nation or
a State without an aggregation of human beings. This defini
tion of a sovereign does not embrace the United States, or the
States Uiuted, The government that represents them, is not
without dependence on a foreign power. That foreign power
was thirteen States in 1787 and is now forty-eight States,
1st. A sovereign State is an assemblage of persons who
govern themselves.
2nd. A sovereign State is an assemblage of person who
govern themselves without dependence on any foreign power.
3rd. Only such a nation is a sovereign State as is vested
with aU the attributes of sovereignty.
When the nine States agreed to the Constitution, it was no
more than a written document that expressed what the States
had agreed to. The Constitution received nothing from tbe
ratifying States. Not one power or privilege common to all
the States passed to or into tbe Constitution, although it was

138 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
and has ever been Mr, Webster's "noun-substantive," The
powers and privileges and all attributes of sovereignty must
from necessity be vested in some person or persons. As al
ready said, they may be held by one man — as a King, Monarch,
Emperor or Czar — or be held by thousands, or mUlions of men
— as in a Republic or State, Hence, tbe Constitution was not
even the repository of any kind of powers tbat belonged to
the, States singly and collectively. For tbe same reason the
government, or tbe departments thereof, did not receive from
the States singly or collectively a single attribute of sover
eignty. The government of the United States is based on and
stands upon the Constitution. There is no government until
the offices named in tbe Constitution are filled by men chosen
by the States — each acting separately. Before that event the
government of the United States could take no sovereign pow
ers. There can be no nation, or State, no govemment, no
sovereignty, without flesh, blood, bones, mind and will. These
are not qualities 'of a govemment. A government is noth
ing more than sovereignty in action. But, even after the
offices named to make a government of tbe United States are
fiUed by appropriate officers, not one attribute of sovereignty'
passes from a State, or the States, to or into the government
of the United States, or to or into the officers filling the offices
which are necessary to constitute a government. If a single
attribute of State sovereignty could pass to tbe federal gov
ernment, it would remain there vested with all its original
vigor and indestructibility. Not only tbat, but the power
once freely and voluntarily granted is irrevocable,
Vattel says, "Every nation that governs itself, under what
form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a
Sovereign State," The word "foreign" here is not nsed in
the sense of distance, but in tbe sense of independence of some
other power or government. In the entire history of the
world no govemment has existed that was more dependent
on a foreign (or other) power than tbe government created
by the thirteen States, Tbe thirteen Sovereign States gave it
IKe, Those and other added States have kept breath in its
body, and but for their support it would vanish like a vision
from the earth, and we could exclaim, "Tbe earth bath bub-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 139
bles, as the water has, and it was of them." Is such a gov
emment, in any sense, in any particular, sovereign? If it
has one attribute of sovereignty, wbere, in what, in or on
whom is it lodged? Is it in tbe people of the United States?
There are no people of tbe United States. Tbat was one of
Mr, Webster's subterfuges when replying to Mr, Calhoun, He
was (irovraing and be grabbed a straw — "help me, Cassius, or
I sink," Mr, Lodge is fair enough to say the facts were
against Webster in bis debate witb Hayne and Calhoim. In
the preamble to the Constitution be found comfortably enscon
ced millions of people whom he greeted as "We, the people
of the United States," distinct from, acting independently of,
the people of each State — or thirteen separate peoples, citizens
of thirteen separate States, And bis followers and dupes ever
since 1833, Uke men drunk to saturation, have been two separ
ate bodies of people, one in each of the States divided — the
other in the United States — or States United. In the popular
mind the Uidted States is a very distinct entity — or force —
from the States United. It is a world power now, separate
from and superior to each State or all the States United, This
is a very wUd, costly and dangerous delusion.
I have said there was never a government so dependent
as the Uiuted States. Instead of having a body of citizens
of its o^wn on whom to draw for civil officers, it has not one in
aU the forty-eight States, Tbe Stated supply from their o^wn
citizens men to be President, men to be senators, men to be
representatives, men to be judges, men to be diplomats, con
suls, revenue collectors, men to pay pensioners; and even that
glorious band of patriots made up of some honorable, deserv
ing, brave men, and (side by side) of a gang of deserters,
bounty jumpers, tramps and perjurers, are citizens of the
several States, This boasted federal govemment — this agent
of each and all the States — tbat has become diseased and drop
sical and swollen out to be an empire, when it gets pugnacious
and decides to fight, has to ask tbe States to let it have soldiers
to do the fighting.
But, after tbe States supply the federal govemment with
men to fill the civil offices, and tbe govemment is in full oper
ation, in whom can its sovereignty, if any, be vested? It

140 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
must be borne in mind that sovereign attributes belong to a
human being — ^to a sole governor, as a monarch, or to an ag
gregation of human beings, as is each of our States, and that
there can not be any semblance of sovereignty in a written
paper, or in the machinery called government. It must fol
low, therefore, that the sovereign attributes, if any, are
vested in the men who fill the offices and operate the machin
ery. But this is impossible. These officers are transient. Their
official lives are limited. They cannot Uve beyond a certain
year, day and hour. If they\bold the powers of a sovereign,
what becomes of those powers wben tbe officers die, resign, or
go out by limitation? If they belong to the officers, (and there
caimot be a federal government without officers) when they
die or resign the sovereignty Would expire also. It' is very
certain that the sovereign qualities caimot abide in the air
awaiting a successor in office. They do not belong to or consti
tute a part of the corporation, or body politic, which is an
imaginary machinery, and, like the earth, "was without form
and void," until men from the States set it to running. Until
officers were elected and assumed tbe offices, there was nothing
but a ¦writing called the Constitution.
This question that has caused so much murder, so much
waste of property, and IKetime suffering and heart-breaking,
divested of tbe metaphysical gipsyism with which federalists
bave swindled the American people since 1789, when subjected
to the simple rules of common sense applied to the history of
the thirteen States and of the Constitution, and of the govem
ment conducted by the States acting together, tbat is called
the United States, is neither a marvel nor a puzzle, it is not
a riddle of Oedipism nor of Samson. If we go back to 1787
and fix in our minds what each State was (free, independent,
and in every particular and aspect sovereign — ^more so than
King George III), then read tbe Constitution and get its spirit
and plain language, and then follow the federal government
through Washington's first administration, we cannot faU to
see where sovereignty, one and undivided, is held and by whom.
I say through Washington's first four years simply to show the
practical working of the Constitution,

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 141
I must apologize to the reader again for going over ground
already traversed in part. My desire to make this view of
the analysis of our Constitution so plain that no man can fail
to understand the relation between the States and the federal
government, is my only excuse for this partial repetition. I
believe this to be the most important knowledge that can be
acquired by Americans old and young. Had it been a part of
the text books in every school, from the beginning of tbe
federal government, I confidently believe tbe war of 1861 would
have been postponed and possibly avoided. I do not say it
would not have burst upon us later, for Puritan fanaticism
which brewed that storm "is not dead, but sleepeth" witb one
eye awake. Since its -vulgar familiarity with the last object
of its professed Samaritan altruism it has found reasonably
active occupation in kicking the negro out of its Northern
, house and teaching him Latin, Greek and social equality in the
South, at the expense of his late impoverished master. This
gentle exercise is only indulged in because its twin devouring
monster— Avarice— for fifty years, has been busy robbing the
poor after. hypnotising them by flattery and lying; by protest
ing friendship — "a charm to lull to sleep," and whining tbat
it was gomg lean and hungry that they might live Uke lords,
compared with foreign laborers.
There is stiU another view, that to tbe writer's mind is con
clusive of the agency of the federal government, and, a fortiori,
of its subordination to the States, and of the complete so-ver-
eignty of each of the thirteen States and of every State admit
ted into the Union. It cannot be denied that each of tbe
thhi;een States possessed every attribute of sovereignty before
and when they agreed to and adopted the Constitution. It
cannot be denied that tbe citizens of Massachusetts were not
citizens of any either State, and so of the citizens of every
other State. It is also trae that the citizens of Massachusetts
and of the other twelve States acted without the co-operation,,
in any form and to any degree, of the citizens of any other
State. It is, also, equally trae that there was no out-lying
territory beyond the borders of the. States when the federal
govemment was organized, and that whatever territory the
United States acquired and held before the purchase of the

142 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

Louisiana tract, was donated by one or more of the States.
Therefore, there were not any people or citizens of the United
States, or States United, when the Convention was agreed to
and adopted in 1787, And wben the Convention wrote in the
preamble to the Constitution, "We, the people of the United
States," it was impossible for them to bave meant any body
of the people except those who were citizens of the respective
States then represented by those deputies who were speaking,
and which States were to act on tbe document when it should
be submitted to each State to ratify, or to reject. With the
foregoing premises undeniable, it seems to be a short step to
the logical conclusion that the sovereignty of each of the
thirteen States is as full and unimpaired as it was on the day
Great Britain acknowledged each to be a free and independ
ent State,
The contention of the federalists is that when the nine
States ratified the Constitution, and it was put into operation,
they conferred a part of their sovereign powers irrevocably
on the federal govemment, I have already shown that sover
eignty cannot be conferred on an inanimate thing ; that noth
ing but hitman beings can be vested with even a single power,
privilege or quality of sovereignty. Therefore, K the States,
acting separately, parted -with a part of their sovereignty,
those parts had to be vested in grantees that had flesh and
, bones, mind and will. Where were the grantees who took, or
were intended by the grantors to be the recipients of those
sovereign, regal attributes, with power to involve the grantees
in war; power to tax the grantors and their heirs and chil
dren -without limit and without responsibUity ? It must be
remembered that when one man makes a grant of property
there must be some one to receive the title. For every grantor
there must be a grantee. A man owning an estate in fee sim
ple, caimot make a deed of that property to himseK. The
grantee must be another human — ^man or woman — ^male or
female. Now, as there were no other people in tbe States,
other than those who were speaking in and by the Constitu
tion, K they were trying to confer the full title to their right
and power to declare war and to le-vy taxes, they were at
tempting to perform a feat that in law — ^in municipal law, by

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 143
the law of nations, by the law of common sense, it was and is
impossible for a man, or nation, or emperor, or State, to ac
complish — ^that is, for a man, or nation, owning the absoldte
perfect title to anything that- man can own, to make a deed
to himseK of that property.
When the people of the thirteen States said, "Congress
shaU have power to do" many acts, las, for instance, to de
clare war, they were speaking of a body of men to be selected
from themselves, from their o-wn ranks. When George Wash
ington, as a deputy, said, "there shall be a President of the
United States," he was preparing to appoint himself to tbat
office. When he said, "the President shall have power to
nominate ' judges, ambassadors," etc., be was granting that
power to himseK. All the powers granted by the Constitu
tion were granted to tbe people who made tbe Constitution.
It was a famUy arrangement made by thirteen political neigh
bors to have a common agent to manage certain parts of their
individual business that each could not manage so well. It
was a compact for mutual safety. It was a trusteeship for
the use and benefit of aU alike, having a common and equal
interest. It was in no sense an agreement to strip themselves
of any sovereign attribute. No necessity existed for that
sacrifice. The deputation, the grant of powers, was not to
and on a foreign nation, people, or State, tbat could receive
and hold them. Tbe people of the States, so far from giv-
mg away any of their powers were conserving them, acting
on the truism "in union there is strength."
Under the popular conception of the federal government,
according to the construction of the Constitution by farmers,
fishermen, sailors, draymen, bootblacks, gamblers, et id omne
genus, who had got the kinks out of Webster's head that were
there in 1812, and got bim on the right track to debate with
Calhoun in 1833, and which construction produced the war of
1861? Mrs. SheUey's intoxicated imagination drew, With
prophetic accuracy, the forecast of the people in these States
United, when she bodied forth the meddling fool, Franken
stein, who fell to meddUng with the laws of nature and pro
duced a monster that tormented him first and then destroyed
him. If that popular opinion of the federal govemment be

144 TRUE VINDICATION . OF THE SOUTH
correct, Frankenstein, the creator of it, is dead and the crea
ture that destroyed bim has his powers and attributes and can,
without let or hindrance, destroy at will. If this -view be
the law, it were far better to have remained -with a fostering
mother than to go into the wUderness and give birth to a
lawless. Godless, brutal child that robs and murders like a
pirate and spends money like a bawd. This construction, de
vised by Mammon and enforced by fanatics, transformed
Elysium into Pandemonium, and, although the fire is only
smouldering, the demons, the fanatics, who fanned it into a
whirl-wind of fiery tongues, are stUl on hand.

CHAPTER XX.
WEBSTER'S "PARENTAL" FALLACY.
Facing aU these famUiar facts, and I might say family his
tory, Mr. Webster, in reply to Calhoun, is driven by them to
resort to chicanery and charlatanry so open as to justify
the beUef that he was speaking to earn his fee, or pension. He
says: "Let me inquire what the Constitution reUes upon for
its own continuance and support, I hear it often suggested
that the States, by refusing to appoint senators and electors,
might bring this government to an end. Perhaps that is
true; but the same may be said of the State governments
themselves. Suppose the legislature of a State, having the
power to appoint the governor and the judges, should omit
that duty, woiUd not the State govemment remain unorgan
ized? Tbe maintenance of this Constitution does not de
pend on the pUghted faith of the States, as States, to support
it; and this again shows it is not a league. It relies on individ
ual duty and obUgations," '
What shaU we think of the Great Expounder of the Con
stitution, who denies facts written all over the face of that
instrument? This is the natural offspring of the parental
faUacy— "We, the people of the United States * * * do
ordain," etc. He is constantly confounding the Constitution
and the government as one, and using them as equivalents.
They are as different and distinct as the ground and the build
ing standing on the ground ; as variant as tbe plabs and draw
ings of an architect, and the house built according to those
plans. The Constitution has no maintenance, no support, in
the sense he speaks of. It is the government created in com
pliance -with the Constitution, which, be says, does not depend
on the plighted faith of the States, as States,
Let us, at the expense of a little repetition, "take the lati
tude" of this statesman, who, Uke "the mariner when he has
been tossed for many days, in thick weather, and on an un
kno-wn sea, naturally avaUs himself of the first pause in the

146 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
storm, the earUest glance of the sun, to ascertain how far the
elements have driven him from his true course," There is
not a paragraph, a sentence, a line, phrase, or word in the
Constitution from which a sophist, however reckless, can draw
the remotest implication tbat tbe Constitution, or the govern
ment erected on it, depends on anything but tbe States, as
States, The States acting separately framed the Constitu
tion. The States acting separately at different times, each
within its own boundaries, adopted, or ordained the Coiisti-
tution. The States acting separately appoint electors who
elect the President. The States acting separately elect Repre
sentatives and Senators, Tn short, there can be no officer of
the government, no tariff, no revenue, no army, no navy^ no
courts, imless the States as States, acting separately, elect
Congressmen, and electors who elect tbe President.
The Constitution caimot be amended except by the States
acting severally. The people of all the States acting together
cannot meet and amend, or abolish the Constitution. All the
voters, fifteen or more million strong, might meet and ordain
amendments to the Constitution, and their enunciations would
be as idle as the croaking of a frog. They, en masse, did not
make it, and they cannot tmmake it. And why? Because
the writing prescribes how it can be amended, and no other
power but the States, acting separately, can touch it. The
voters of thirteen separate States have directed how the Con
stitution can be amended, and there can be no other way so
long as that condition is in force. The people, en masse, that
is, the people counted together as a whole, as the people of
France, or England are coimted, have no cormection with the
federal government, ' Tn that sense, there is not a single at
tribute of sovereignty in the ninety miUion people. In that
sense there are no people of the United States. Tbe Consti
tution — the gofvernment's only chart, its only raison d'etre,
its Ufe-breath— ^knows nothing of the sglid mass of people.?
They did not appear as a factor in making the Constitution,
nor in putting the government in running order, nor in keep
ing it gomg. This is demonstrated by the fact that no man
can vote outside of his own State. As soon as he passes the
boimdary of his own State he loses tbe power by Tvhich alone,

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 147
under our State laws, be can act as one of the citizens of a
sovereign State. As a citizen of the United States he has no
baUot ; he has no domicile, no testamentary capacity. The only
point at which the government touches the entire people is
by taxation, direct or indirect. There is not one act relating
to the government that tbe entire people, acting together, can
do. Even direct taxes must be apportioned among the several
States according to their respective numbers.
But Mr. Webster proceeds with innumerable errors begot
ten of their natural mother — "We, tbe people of tbe United
States * * * do ordain," etc. Here is a small select group :
"The Constitution of the United States creates direct rela
tions between the government and individuals."
Yes, but who and what are these "individuals?" They
are the citizens of the several States, and each one constitutes
a part of the sovereignty of each State, over whom the thirteen
States, acting independently and separately, gave the federal
govemment each and every power it possesses, and then said,
"these few powers you can exercise exclusively for our bene
fit, and not one more." There were no other people than those
in the States and there were then no territories.
Again, be continues: "This government can punish in-
..dividuals for treason and all other crimes in tbe code wben
committed against the United States." These individuals,
as a part of sovereign States, ordained by the Constitution
they framed that the federal government should have pOwer
to protect itself from injury or destruction by treason, and
to punish all crimes committed against it. This is what Mr.
Webster calls sucb direct relations between the government
and the people or individuals, as to prove, to some extent,
that the entire mass of tbe people then in the thirteen States,
¦without regard to State lines or locaUties, came together and
ordained the Constitution.
Again : "It has power also to tax individuals in any mode,
and to any extent, and the further power of demanding from
individuals military service." No government can be oper
ated ¦without money, and tbe power to tax for that purpose
had to be given. But, from that does it foUow tbat the whole
people, regardless of States, conferred that power? A govern-

148 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
ment given power to wage war must have an army. Where
else can it get soldiers but frbm citizens of the States? There
are no other people in the United States. But the same ques
tion comes up, growing out of the first fallacy — "We, the peo
ple" — ^which question is — Who and what are these individuals
or .citizens who may be soldiers? And the same answer is
inevitable. There were no individuals — ^not one — except those
who owed allegiance to their respective States, and who were
part of the people who constituted the sovereignty of each
State, and who framed and afterward agreed to the Constitu
tion, But Mr, Webster failed to quote a very essential part
of the Constitution relating to military service. The govern
ment cannot, at will, reach out and grab individuals by the
hair and force them into military service. When Washing
ton became President, although be was commander-in-chief
of the army and navy, he had not a soldier or sailor under
his authority. The President when be needs soldiers, must
request the governors of tbe States to supply bim, and the
governors consenting, have the reserved power to name the
officers of the companies, battalions, or regiments he orders ¦
out, Mr. Webster had to notice Mr. Calhoun's remarks on the
sovereignty of the people of the States, This was an obstruc
tion in his path which he could not surmount. This perform
ance was indeed the most admirable piece of art of the many
that form the mosaic of this wonderful exhibition of Jesuiti
cal evasion. Cagliostro never surpassed in grace, dignity and
apparent ' delight bis reception of an unwelcome creditor, or
officer of tbe law, nor dismissed bim ¦with more consummate
skUl, than Mr. Webster took up and despatched Mr. Calhoun's
argument .on tbe sovereignty of the States. His action has a
parallel in the magic of tbe east. Tbe Hindoo magician comes
in, bares bis arms, takes the chUd from the basket, fondles it,
smiles on it, kisses it, tosses it from hand to hand vsdth grace,
skiU and strength, and as the spectators wonder what be wiU
do with it, be suddenly throws it in the air above his head
and it disappears forever. Tbe spectators are deUghted, tJiey
applaud, the magician bows his acknowledgment, and the

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 149

crowd disperses, wondering what bad become of tbe child.
This specimen is worthy of quotation:
"Mr. President, the nature of sovereignty, or sovereign
power, has been extensively discussed by gentlemen on this
occasion, as it generaUy is wben the origin of our government
is debated. But I confess myseK not entirely satisfied with
arguments and iUustrations drawn from that topic,"
As Samuel Weller says — ^"that is a self-bevident proposi
tion." No man standing on the preamble to the Constitu
tion and drawing from it material for warfare could be "satis
fied" ¦with Mr, Calhoun's demonstration that tbe people in
each State were sovereign, and that the Constitution was
framed and ordained by thirteen , separate peoples, because
that is fatal to "We, the people of the United States."
Again: "The sovereignty of government is an idea be
longing to the other side of tbe Atlantic. No such thing is
known in America, Our governments are limited. In Europe,
sovereignty is of feudal origin, and imports no more than the
state of the sovereign. It comprises his rights, duties, exemp
tions, prerogatives and powers. But with us, all power is
with the people. They alone are sovereign; and they erect
what governments they please, and confer on them such pow
ers as they please. None of these governments are sovereign
in the European sense of the word, all being restrained by
¦written Constitutions,"
Here is his oft-repeated error, or sophism, in speaking of
the sovereignty of govemment. No govemment is sovereign
anywhere, except where a king or monarch, czar or emperor
holds in himseK aU the elements and machinery of govern
ment. That which ordains govemment, whether one man, or
millions, holds the sovereign power. Govemment is no more
than sovereignty in aiction; or, as he says in the last quota
tion — "sovereignty is the state of the sovereign and com
prises his rights, duties, etc,"
Again: "It seems to me, therefore, that we only perplex
ourselves wben we attempt to. explain the relations existing
between tbe general government and the several State govern
ments according to the ideas of sovereignty which prevaU
under systems essentially different from our own.

150 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Yes, Mr, Calhoun's reasoiung did give Mr, Webster "per
plexity" enough, and the juggler tosses the question of State
sovereignty, which he had fondled so lovingly, high in the
air, to be seen no more in that debate.
Mr, Webster's change of position, not change of opinion,'
on Secession, in 1833, was his fatal mistake. He had warned
President Madison in 1812 that the embargo might cause sepa
ration (secession) of the New England States, In 1830 he had
not changed, that view of the Constitution which he had been
studying for thirty-one years. But his clientele and constitu
ents changed their position, and in the debate of 1833 he put
aside bis opinion and maintained their ¦view, as he was em
ployed in their interests. That his first opinion had changed ,
there is no reason to believe except by his acts, because in
1850 he asserted as true that an agreement, or contract, or
compact, broken on one side is not binding on the other. He
was speaking of slavery and the nullification by Northern
States, and Legislatures and mobs in those States, of the fugitive
slave laws passed by Congress. If the covenant had been
broken by the North the South was free and could secede. That
was his declaration in 1850 when the snows of winter had
cooled the ardor of youth, and -vi^^ben be saw the rain hia
treacherous tongue bad ¦wrought.
The first wicked lie must have a large progeny to help the
guilty one out of the scrape. So was it with Mr. Webster's
first fatal mistake, wben, being overwhelmed, he took refuge
in the preamble to the Constitution, and seized on "We, the
people," for defense.
Here is another false position, born of the first proUfic
error. When reminded that the States by non-action could „
destroy this big bully that was riding over and trampling
down bis parent, he answered— " The Constitution utters its
behests in the name and by authority of tbe people, and it
exacts not from the States any pUgbted pubUc faith 4o mam-
tain it. On tbe contrary, it makes its o-wn preservation depend;||
on mdividual duty and individual obUgations, Sir ! the States '•¦
cannot omit to appoint (senators and electors!" (There is
something thrillingly assuring in tbat proimciamento by such
high authority! Now, observe the convincing reason,) "It

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 151
is not a matter r.esting in State discretion or State pleasure.
The Constitution has taken better care of its own preserva
tion. It lays its hand on individual conscience and individual
duty. It incapacitates any man to sit in the legislature of
a State who shall not first have taken his solemn oath to sup
port the Constitution of the United States. From the obli
gation of that oath no State power could discharge him. All
the members of the State legislature are as religiously bound
to support the Constitution of the United States as they are
to support their own State Constitutions. Nay, Sir! they are
as solemnly bound to support it as we ourselves are who are
members of Congress."
In aU forensic advocacy, political debates and judicial an
nouncements in this country, from the Revolution of 1776, to
date, there is no utterance that approaches this in apparent
simpUcity of abiding faith in the unyielding virtue of tbe
"individual conscience" and the martyrdom of poUticians.
"Indi^vidual Conscience!" "Solemnly sworn to support the
Constitution!" "ReUgiously bound!" And, this, too, by one
of America's greatest inteUects and reasoners; this from the
son of New England, who, like Saul of Kish, towered head
and shoulders above all her other sons! How true that the
first Ue breeds a big family of lies. At the moment when this
man was fighting behind the preamble to the Constitution, and
was crying against his opponents — "Oh! ye of Uttle faith,"
people, preachers, members of legislatures who bad sworn to
support the Constitution of the United States which recog
nized slaves as property, had turned thieves and were steal
ing negro slaves through the South and sending them to Can
ada by the Underground Railroad. It was about this time
that Henry Ward Beecher, after midnight, took two negro
women in a conveyance at Cincinnati, and, with the aid of
another man, drove them back in the woods of Ohio and de
Uvered them to a man whose business it was to receive stolen
negroes and forward them to Canada. And Mr. Webster lived
, to see the majority of legislators of Northern States perjure
|;'^?' themselves by enacting statutes expressly to oppose and
nullify the fugitive slave laws of Congress. Yes, and he lived
long enough to see this perjury and mob-rule, and stealing of

152 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
negroes reduce the South to the condition which, in his opin
ion, expressed in the memorial to President Madison, made
secession not only justifiable but a necessity. And in his
speech at Capon Springs, Va., in 1850, he, as has been stated,
told the country that "a contract broken on one side is not
binding on the other,"
Mr, Webster indulged himseK in such fustian, rant iand
pedagogic bombast as the following:
"Sir! I must say to the honorable Senator that, in our
American political grammar. Constitution is a norm substan
tive; it imports a distinct and clear idea of itseK; and it is
not to lose its importance, and dignity, it is not to be turned
into a poor, ambiguous, senseless, unmeaning adjective, for
the purpose of accommodating any new set of political notions,^'
Sir! we reject this new rule of syntax altogether. We -wiU
not give up our forms of poUtical speech to the grammarians
of the school of nulUfication, By the Constitution we mean
not a "constitutional compact," but simply and directly the
Constitution — ^the fundamental law ; and i£ there be one word
in the language which the people of the United States under
stand, it is that one word. We know no more of a "constitu
tional compact" between sovereign powers than we know of
a constitutional indenture of co-partnership," etc.
Poor Mr. CaUioun! To be lectured in that pedagogic,
pedantic. Puritanic, New Englandic and bossing style about
his bad grammar and unconstitutionality in using the phrase
"constitutional compact," and that, too, in public, in the
United States Senate, and to be chucked about the head with
"nouns substantive," with "Sirs!" with ambiguous, sense
less, unmeaning adjectives," and aU this castigation only be
cause he had made one mistake m his speech on the Force
BiU a few days before he received this spanking by the great- ,
est of aU New England's pedagogues. Mr. Calhoun did say
"constitutional compact," He was caught in the act. He
had the goods. He was guUty, and he was punished in the
good old way adopted by Puritan manners and conscience.
That is, he was piUoriod. What could he say or do but plead
guilty?

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 153
The reader ¦will bear in mind that after the debate between
Hayne and Webster in January, 1830, a bill was introduced
hi Congress to force South Carolina, by military power, and
that bUl was called the Force Bill. Between 1830 and 1833
Mr. Calhoun entered the Senate, and in January 1833 be had
delivered a speech on the Force Bill, in which he used the
words "constitutional compact." To this speech Mr. Webster
repUed on January 16th, 1833, and from tbat speech tbe quo
tation above is taken. Mr. Calhoun then delivered a speech
(January 26th) as a rejoinder to Mr. Webster's reply made to
him on January 16th. In this rejoinder Mr. Calhoun did the
very best he could. He said :
"I regret that I exposed myself to the criticism of tbe
Senator. I certainly did not intend to use any expression of
a doubtful sense, and K I have done so, the Senator must at
tribute it to the poverty of my language, and not to design. I
trust, however, the Senator will excuse me when he hears my
apology. In matters of criticism, authority is of the highest
impprtance, and I have authority of so high a character in
this case, for using the expression which he considers so
obscure and unconstitutional, as wUl justKy me even in his
eyes. It is no less than the authority of the Senator himseK."
Mr. Calhoun then read a paragraph in Mr. Webster's reply
to Hayne in 1830, and continued: "It ¦will be seen by this
extract, that the Senator not only uses the phrase "constitu
tional compact," which he now so much condemns, but, what
is of StiU more importance, he calls the Constitution itseK 'a
compact' — 'a bargain,' — ^which contains important admissions
having a direct and powerful bearing on the main issue in
volved in the discussion, as will appear in the course of my
remarks." Mr. Webster had said in his speech in reply to Calhoun's
on the Force Bill, "When sovereign communities are parties,
there is no essential difference between a compact, a confeder
ation, and a league." Here was an admission that put bim
out of court. In bis reply to Hayne he said nothing of "We,
the people," but when he admitted that an agreement between
sovereigns is a compact, or confederation, he had to resort to
the preamble to argue that the people, en masse, and not the

154 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
States, which he could not deny were sovereign, had framed
and ordained and ratified the Constitution,
Well may Mr. Webster's biographer, Mr, Lodge, frankly
admit that the facts were against him in this debate, and that
the populace wanted bim to win, and, therefore, he won. His
logic was not to blame, The cause he espoused defeated him,
he was on the vni-ong side. The counsel and advocate was
earning his pension. He choked into silence his conscientious
conviction of thirty years on secession, and forgot his duty
to his country.

CHAPTER XXI,
WEBSTER'S MISINTERPRETATION OF
THE "PREAMBLE."
We see this redoubtable Chieftain of New England dodg
ing the "the States" that stand as inspired interpreters aU
along the Constitution, and resorting to the expressionless
preamble for inspiration to tell the Vorld what tbe Constitu
tion means., The preamble is no more a key to that structure
than a portico is evidence of the contents of a palace ; or the
"Oyes! Oyes!" of tbe crier of a court is an announcement of
a decision the Judge is about to deliver. Tbe preamble really
seems about as useful to us to teach what the Constitution
contains, as would be a door-mat to unlock a door to see what
is in the house.
The preamble does not contain a single declaration of any
thing the people intended to say in the Constitution. It is a
declaration of what they expected to accomplish by making a
joint agreement— "to form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquUity," etc. Tbe convention
could not say, — "We, tbe people of Virginia, Georgia, Rhode
Island, New York, etc., do ordain," etc., because that would
have assumed tbat aU the States would accept the terms of
the writing. The delegates might have been severely criti
cized had they named the thirteen States, as only nine were
required to accept to give Ufe to the agreement. It would
have been "counting chickens before they were hatched" to
have named all the States. They could not select any nine as
certain to agree. As it was, some took two years to decide,
and some agreed by a bare majority. Hence, the delegates
had to say, "We, the people of the United States,"
We have heard bim assert that the people bad already
waived aside the Judges who wore gowns, and had taken up
the Constitution, and, after due consideration, without argu-
iment, had decided that that contract made Nullification and

156 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Secession treason. We have beard him announce that the
Constitution made provision for its own preservation and- is,
in no sense, dependent on the States for protection, or its Ufe,
We have heard him give as tbe reason for this protection,
that legislators, who had sworn to support the Constitution,
would not violate that dath!
Can any lawyer, or judge, who is not a blind partisan, say
that the "Great Expounder of the Constitution" was honest
in that debate? Did he not weigh the value of Protection to
New England against the safety of the Union, and tip the
scales in favor of Protection? He was too great a la-wyer
not to know that he was trifling with tbe destiny of the repub
lic — that, as Captain in command, be was heading for the
breakers! I have said he had carefully surveyed the field of
battle and he saw the coming struggle would not be determ
ined by the Constitution, but that it would turn on the Laws
of Nations. Knowing this, he, throughout two debates, took"
his stand on the Constitution — ^in solido — and its preamble,
and fired a hundred rounds, thunderously, with, "the Con
stitution" — "the government" — "the people" — "the people!"
And when Calhoun challenged bim to leave the Constitution
and to make the gage of battle on the broader field of "The
Laws of Nations," he ignored the challenge and answered, "I
stand. Sir, on the 'noim-substantive' — ^the Constitution."
In reviewing these debates, I have attained the point where
it is in order to consider what seems to be the law that is the
touchstone to determine the question made by the Northern
States when the Southern States seceded. They assumed -with
the arrogance and defiance of numbers and superior strength :i|
1st. That the Union was formed to exist in perpetuity.
2nd. That, therefore, no State has tbe right to secede.
3rd. That aU differences between States should be decided
by the U. S. Supreme Court.
4th. That Congress, acting through the President as com
mander-in-chief of the army and navy, is vested by the Con
stitution with power to make war on a seceding State to force
it to obey the laws of Congress; or,
5th. If such authority and power be not expressly given
to Congress, still, they are necessarUy implied, on the ground

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 157
that every nation has, by the law of nations, the inherent
right to preserve its existence by any means ; including war,
6th, That, as a corollary to the last contention, the U. S,
government was a nation in 1861,
It wUl be observed that the Constitution is silent on every
one of the six propositions. There is not a line or word in
that writing that even remotely refers to any one of the six
claims. Every one is an assumption. There is no positive
law to support even one of them, except tbe fifth, and that
has no pertinence to tbe question under discussion, unless the
advocates of it wiU, also, assert as a necessary precedent
ground that the government of the United States^ was a nation
in 1861, I wUl anticipate an answer tbat will be made that
the fourth contention by the Northern people is expressly
provided for by the Constitution in these words, to-wit : "Con
gress shall bave power to provide for calling forth tbe militia
to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and
repel invasions," This pro-vision wiU be considered at the
proper time,
A few general statements, although already made in pre
ceding chapters, must be repeated in order to assure a clear un-
derstanding of tbe law, which, in my opinion, decides the dispute
that, by a fratricidal war, has riven this country in twain.
First. In 1787 there were in this country thirteen sovereign
States, each separate, free and independent.
Second. Each of those States, free and independent, sent
deputies to PhUadelphia to confer, and, if they could agree,
to frame a Constitution on and by which a govemment might
be formed to represent the thirteen States in the exercise of
such of their powers as sovereigns must exercise in their illa
tions to and with other sovereigns, and, also, to exercise a
few of the powers tbat sovereigns exercise for domestic peace
and tranquiUty, and for tbe interests and happiness of their
i'^tojects.t. Third. The deputies, representing each State, should they
agree on a proposition, were to submit it to their separate
States, for separate action by each State, for tbe people of
each State, acting separately, to approve or to reject the
proposition.

158 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Fourth. The deputies agreed on a proposition to be called
a Constitution, which -w&s submitted to each State and each
State, acting separately, at different dates, within its o-wn
boundaries and in its sovereign capacity, at its seat of govern
ment, approved the -vrriting and ratified the action of the
deputies. Fifth, The Constitution beihg thus agreed tp, each State,
acting separately, proceeded to organize a govemment in ac
cordance with the terms of their agreement; each State elect
ing electors to vote foi? a President and Vice-President; each
State electing Representatives and Senators to Constitute a
Congi'ess; these electors from each State met in their respect
ive States, elected a President and Vice-President; the Presi
dent, then, with the consent of the Senate, appointed judges,
ambassadors, consuls and all other executive appointees, and
the federal government was organized to exercise the limited
powers committed to it by the Constitution,
Sixth. By the Constitution the States expressly provided
to retain absolute control of the govemment thus organized.
They retained the elective franchise to be exercised by citizens
of each State on terms to be prescribed as each State should
desire and decide ; and no citizen of one State can vote in any
other State. They kept control of the Constitution by pro-vid-
ing that three-fourths of the States can amend it in any
particular— by adding to or taking from it. The power to
enact a law carries with it the power to amend the law; and
amendment covers subtraction as weU as addition. Further
more, the power of a sovereign to make its or his own lai^s
includes the power to repeal those laws. So that, as sovereign
States made this law — the Constitution — and agreed that
three-fourths of their number can, at wiU, amend it ; and as a
sovereign that makes a law can repeal it, the number of
States tbat can subtract can also repeal. Three-fourths of the
States can amend hj repealing the power to declare war, to
levy taxes.

CHAPTER XXn.
AN AMAZING IGNORANCE AND A
SUGGESTED SPEECH.
It is amazing to Southerners trained in the simplest laws
and ethics that govern nations in their conduct inter sese, to
see, hear and read of the childlike innocence and complacency
of ignorance displayed by Northern historians, pubUeists and
pamphleteers when pointing with pride to the final construc
tion of the Constitution made "by the people." They style
this unexpressed, unascertained, uncanvassed, and, therefore,
unknown wiU of some of the people — ^no number nor locality
stated — a construction of tbe Constitution, and a decision and
judicial judgment of its meaning from which there is no ap
peal. With them it is the last word, a finality, although not
one of the people — ^not even one of the imaginary judges con
sisting of the people — ever heard of, or dreamt of, or thought
of the question in dispute,
Mr, Lodge says (as already quoted) that in 1830, Mr. Web
ster, in reply to Hayne, gave voice to the opinion of the Con
stitution as held by "the populace." What populace? Where
were they? How, wben and where did Mr. Webster learn
what the Poprdace thought of nullification? He knew, as
well as he knew where his home was, what the populace in
and adjoining New England thought of secession. He had
heard, a thousand times, probably, of their opinion claiming
the right to secede. Up to 1830, no one at the North ques
tioned the right of each State to secede. After Webster's
speech in answer to Hayne, 1830, it is claimed that he had but
echoed the popular decision. There had not been a gathering
of the people; no meeting, not even a bar-room conference;
but Mr. Lodge insists that the popxdace had spoken before
1830, up to which date the doctrine of secession had not been
thought of in the South except when the press noticed some
of the many threats by New England to secede.

160 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
A construction of the Constitution by the populace ! Until
1829 the word Nullification had not been heard by the peo
ple, except by a few in New England. They, the body of the
people, did not know the meaning of that word. Yet, we are
to believe that the majority of the pedple had been for years
debating whether the act of nullification by a State could be
constitutional, and had decided it could not. Is there any
other statement or contention by a historian that is or can be
so absurd as this? That the people had ever come to an agree
ment against Nullification is absurdly false; any agreement,
even if unanimous against, or in favor of, NuUification, would
be equally absurd as a binding construction, or as a legal, or
judicial opinion. No! this is but a blind. It is a soothing
plaster to cover Webster's seK-inflicted wound. It is a stalk
ing-horse on which to escape the charge that his opinion of
1830 was the echo of the forty (40) manufacturers who guar
anteed his pension for service rendered them in Congress.,'!!
If it is amazing to, bear a learned -writer, who is not a
lawyer, speak of great questions arising out of the Constitu
tion being judicially decided by popular opinion, what are
lawyers and judges to think, say and do, when they hear the
"Great Expounder of the Constitution'.' advance the same
legal heresy, and see it planted in the mind of the rabble, or
mob, to hatch out chaos? Near the opening of Mr. Webster's !
reply to Calhoun, he said :
"Mr. President, K I considered the constitutional ques
tion now before us as doubtful as it is important * * * this
would be to me a moment of deep soUcitude. Such a moment
has once existed. There has been a time wben, rising in this
place" (when he repUed to Hayne, 1830), "I felt, I must .
confess, that something for good or evil to the Constitution '
of the country might depend on an effort of mine. But circum
stances are changed. Since that day. Sir, public opmion ,
has become awakened to this great question; it has grasped
it, it has reasoned upon it, as becomes an intelligent and patrl- 1
otic community, and has settled it, or now seems in the
progress of settling it, by an authority which none can disobey
— the authority of the people themseives."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 161
No demagogue, however skilled m his destructive art, has
ever thrown to the mob a more dangerous apple of discord.
It sounds as terrible as if it were the announcement of the
decision of anarchists in convention with firebrands in hand.
We hear its ominous echo each time the lion hunter from
wUdest Africa, in his wild hunt for the Presidency tbe third
time, stabs his once bosom friend, and appeals to labor to
fight capital and despoU it. In the debate with Hayne, three
years before the above stunning announcement that "the peo
ple had settled the question," Mr. Webster had contended
that the people of South Carolina could not decide and settle
the question of nuUification, because the Constitution had pro
vided a Supreme Court to decide all such issues — such as the
constitutionality of an Act of Congress. But the question of
nuUification and Secession could be settled by the people of
the North, and there could be no appeal from that popular
decision of the most important political question any people
on earth ever had to decide — a question involving the life of
a republic, and the happiness of millions then, and of hun
dreds of millions to follow.
That Senator Lodge should not understand the elementary
Laws of Nations and tbe Constitution is not surprising. He
is not a lawyer. Like John Fiske, he is a literateur, a his
torian, a renovator of old furniture for new shelves, a fur-
bisher of thrice told tales, a decanter of old wines into new
bottles; not a reasoner, but a narrator; a late recruit enlisted
to maintain a losing cause for a private's pay. It is but a
natural sequence that he should imagine that ^he only bond
holding tbe States together is to be interpreted by the popu
lace — ^laymen like himseK. But be must be excused, forgiven,
as we find that he has only paraphrased the "Great Expounder
of the Constitution," his predecessor in the Senate.
Yet, Daniel Webster first announced the astounding dis-
¦^''.eovery that the question which the wisest statesmen — ^himseK
among the number — ^had debated for years without reaching
a decision, had been taken up outside by butchers, bakers and
candlestick makers, and settled in favor of "the negative side."
Whajt a pity to waste so much ammunition after tbe war was
over! To fight another battle of New Orieans and kill poor

162 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Pakenham, and, that too by the Commander-in-Chief, who, we
must infer, had read the popular pronunciamento.
Mr. Webster was a logician of great power. He knew the
true from the false in logic. He was seemingly candid and
above dissimulation. He appeared to be sincere in scorning
resort to the arts of the demagogue. He spoke as if he
despised pinchbeck jewelry and apples of Sodom, Give him
a subject that embraces rugged Alps, to be scaled and leveled,
and rayless caverns to be explored and illumined by the light
of day, and those born with feeble vision can see their way.
Give him a subject free from the gins and snares of partisan
ship, that does not arouse the greed of the Puritan; that is
free from the -wiles that tempt the conscience, give him a sub
ject devoid of sectional bias, that did not in the remotest de
gree envelop any interest of Massachusetts or New England]
and give bim time to train bis Pegasus of thought, and he
could treat it with impartiality, in a broad catholic spirit, and
with ability surpassed by very few debaters or statesmen. But
in any conjuncture, on any occasion, even wben the Union was
in jeopardy, and before bis sublime self-sacrifice on March
7th, 1850, if the financial interests of New England were in
one scale and the interests of tbe other States were in the
opposite scale, the wonderful resources of Webster's oceanic
intellect were wrested by ambition, sectional pride and his
personal benefit as estimated by him, in behalf of that Uttle
industrial group, at the head of which stood the original
Puritan nursery that he adored.
When forced by the scathing criticism of Hayne to at
tempt a defense of Massachusetts, rising to the height of a
grandiloquent bluff, he exclaimed: "Mr, President, I shaU
enter on no encomium upon Massachusetts; she needs none.
There she is. Behold her, and judge for yourselves. There
is her history ; the world knows it by heart. The past, at least,
is secure. There is Boston and Concord and Lexington and
Bunker HiU, and there they wiU remain forever," What a
lean, meagre, equivocating, halting, timorous index to a cyclo->
pedia of crimes committed in the name of the God of mercy,
and justice and love, that covers the records of a hundred
years !

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 168

That euphonious bombast had been most artistically ar
ranged and measured by a devoted son compeUed to take the
witness stand in the highest tribunal on earth, to say what he
could in behalf of his mother, whose hands, the listening
judges knew as well as he, were so steeped in the blood of
savages and saints, women and babes, Indians, Africans, and
her own children that they would
"The multitudinous seas incarnadine.
Making the green one red,"
"There is her history; the world knows it by heart," True,
indeed — and "pity 'tis, 'tis true." Would it had been buried
with her sacrosaints, Winthrop, Endicott, John Cotton, Cotton
Mather and others whose malodorous memories taint even
now the air about New England's triumphs as, for days after
Waterloo, the odor of "rider and horse in one red burial blent,"
tainted aU tbe glory of victory,
"Boston, Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill," How
electic was the skilKul, practiced eye of this loving son, in
choosing these four brilliant gems from a ponderous casket
loaded with paste, to decorate the hideous brow of his bloody
Borgia mother !
What a beggarly account and display of the accumulations
of two centuries. He was touchingly modest, in view of the
graves, gibbets, pUlories, and judicial murders from which to
choose a few specimen exhibits. He could bave continued —
"And there is Salem with ber sUent but eloquent string of
gaUows adorned with swinging Quakers — ^heroes and heroines
aU! And there, too, in this graveyard you behold her many
testimonials to her celestial divination by which she detected
the secret, midnight machinations of the Devil in imparting
to old women and children bis power to bewitch her pious and
peaceful followers of the Lord. There in Boston, and near
PaneuU Hall, stands the gallows from which that martyr to
her reUgious Faith, Mary Dyer, gave up her Ufe in the pres
ence of her own chUdren and of the Puritan saints. There,
too, you behold her temples dedicated to the worship of her
confidential Lord, and before whose sacred portals stand her
favorite ministers of justice, and efficient auxiliaries of her

164 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
constabulary — ^her pillories, her bilboes, her stocks and gib
bets, "I have said there is Concord, — ^Yes, the only remaining
monument that has survived one hundred and fifty years of
perpetual Discord — discord with Indians; discord -with all
Quakers, Episcopalians, Baptist, Calvinistic and other heretics
perpetually infesting her peaceful shores, which she had con
secrated as landings for her hundred ships laden with savage
negroes "plucked as brands from the burnings" from darkest
heathen Africa, to give them the incalculable blessing of the
Puritans' incomparable and peculiar religion; discord -with
Kings and Queens; discord with England's naval officers who
disapproved of the practice by her sons of the art of smug
gling introduced by them from the old world to the new.
These, Mr. President, are but specimen bricks taken at ran
dom from the many pyramidal monuments standing as im
perishable witnesses to testify to the glory of Massachusetts.
But I refrain to weary your patience witb further recital of
these details that stand like marble milestones along her bril
Uant pathway, stretching over two hundred years of energy
that benevolently extended, without rest, into the borders
of ber neighbors and sisters. With one other proof of her
superior activity springing from the irrepressible love of un-
trammeled personal liberty, T shall leave with you and the
country this brief index of the history of Massachusetts,
"Without arrogance or boasting I affirm that Massa
chusetts, impeUed by her spirit of liberty, has led her sister
colonies and States in many of tbe useful activities of IKe, as
well as on the line of useful inventions. She was the first to
demonstrate her unconquerable bostiUty to tyranny by tear
ing do-wn one of tbe market houses in Boston by what in this
day is denominated a mob. It was only the action of a few
Puritan sons who objected to the market, and they gathered
together and adopted tbe readiest and least expensive method
of removing what to them was objectionable. This high spirit
has marked ber industrious sons from that day to this. Those
Puritan patriots were the first to inaugurate smuggling in
resistance to the statute of Parliament whieh they imagmed
transgressed the bounds of personal liberty and of individual

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 165
rights. Those Puritan Christian patriots were the first to dis
cover that the only effectual method to get rid of and to
sUence pestiferous Quakers who obstinately refused conform
ity to their eighty-nine articles of Faith, was to swing them
from the gaUows. They led their sister States in tbe discov
ery that Jesus Christ was no co-equal with the Father, indeed,
was not Divine — and they improved and enlarged the borders
of reUgion by establishing tbe doctrine of Unitarianism.
. "They, like the Athenians, were constantly on the watch
for somethmg new, Wben they reaUzed that negro slavery
was unprofitable, as they founded it, being sensitively con
scientious, they concluded it was their duty to aboUsh it from
the Union, but, as the Constitution guaranteed it, that instru
ment seemed an insuperable obstacle in their way. Being,
however, inventive and indefatigable, they began to investi
gate, and soon found, through fate and metaphysical aid —
the means prescribed by Lady Macbeth for Macbeth to reach
the "golden roimd" — ^that Providence had provided for them
a "higher Law" than the Constitution, and they are now
working with the industry of a herd of hungry beavers, out
side and above that fundamental law, to give to the slave-
holding States a modicum of the blessings of liberty enjoyed
by themselves. Considering that the people of Massachusetts,
at first, were all Puritans, and that those saints are still in
control of ber government and destiny, perhaps I should
qualify by some measure of , diminution the merit I bave ac
corded to her in the two instances touching tbe discovery of
Unitarianism and the 'Higher Law', because, Sir, as the Pil
grim Fathers were, and their descendants are, successorsi to
the Israelites as God's chosen people, and are His vice-gerents
over this world, and bave always been in the closest confiden
tial relation and hourly communication with their Deity, it
may be that He may have diffidently suggested the method of
; discovering the repository of tbe 'Higher Law,'
"And, Mr. President, I should not omit to call attention
to the superiority of the descendants of tbe Pilgrim Fathers
in that broad, intricate, entangling and metaphysical field de
nominated Finance. I need not do more in support, if not in
fjdemonstration, of their superior acumen as financiers, than

166 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
to point to the vast accumulation of riches within the borders
of Massachusetts, and, indeed. Sir, of all New England, This,
Sir, is due to the Puritans' discovery of tbe immeasurable
wealth that the framers of the Constitution, in their foresight
and beneficence in behaK of posterity, had enveloped and con
cealed in that magic phrase — 'general welfare', the 'Sesame'
to which that investigating and philanthropic people around
Plymouth Rock were so fortunate as to discover,
' ' There remains but one more proof of tbe inventive genius
of the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers, to which I shaU at
, present refer. While it does not lie within the expansive field
of Finance proper, still, it is a legitimate offspring of that
modern growth of wisdom and and chicanery, I mean that
mental contrivance, compounded of many chances, which is
denominated 'Dealing in Futures,' To tbe ingenious people
of Massachusetts must be assigned aU credit for tbe invention
of this purely intellectual adjunct to Finance, It originated
in Boston and grew out of her method of conducting the sale
of ber negro slaves, or rather her style of advertising negro
slaves for sale. Not having before me the journal in which
this innovation on the custom of sales appeared, I must be
content to say that the owner of a negro wench, as he styled
ber, offered her and her child then unborn for sale, the pur
chaser to take both, or take the mother or chUd alone. It is
readily seen that the purchaser of the child was 'dealing in
futures' to the degree of recklessness — for the child might
come blind, or deaf, or dumb, or epileptic, a paralytic, a crip
ple; or— I was about to say — a mulatto, but remembering
that the transaction occurred in Boston, I saw, at oncCj the im
possibility of the woman giving birth to a mulatto at that
period of Boston's Puritan virtues.
"With one more remark I shall leave this feeble encomium
of Massachusetts with you and the country. It is that the
Puritans by adopting that new method of sales of personal
property, introduced a new rule governing tbe vaUdity of
title. By the Common Law, one delivery of personal prop
erty is sufficient to vest title in the purchaser, whereas it is
evident, even to /the understanding of a layman, that in this
case of 'dealing in futures' two deliveries were necessary in
order to perfect the title,"

CHAPTER XXm.
THE RIGHT OF SECESSION.
1 Having shown the right of a nation to withdraw from any
agreement of whatever name or obligation, and that each
State in the Union in 1787 was a nation, we now come to the
question of the right of the Southern States to secede from
the Union in 1861. If the Law of Nations justifies secession in
the abstract, it must follow, a fortiori, that the slave States
had the right to secede should it appear that the free States
had violated the agreement by which tbe thirteen States were
united. As already said, it matters not what the agreement
between the States is called — ^whether a convention, a com
pact, league, confederation or constitution. We are not pur
suing a shadow. We are considering substance. We have
heretofore quoted Daniel Webster's fanfaronade on the word
Constitution — "I -wiU have tbe gentleman (Mr. Calhoun) to
know that the Constitution is a noun substantive," It would
perplex any "Yankee school-teacher" — or other teacher, or
i.^rammarian, to produce a noun that is not "substantive,"
Webster did not inform "tbe gentleman" what sort of noun
is "compact, agreement, league, contract," or "confederation."
He spoke as K tbe Constitution were clothed with the sanctity of
the Ark of the Covenant, and tbat he was one of the Koha-
thites to whom its safety was intrusted. This grandiloquence
was indulged in in 1833, We soon shall see him in a different
role, and hear bim reduce his "noun substantive" to its com
mon-sense meaning — "a contract,"
We must now make a brief review of the action of tbe
States and of the conduct of people of tbe Northern States
from the formation of the Union to the election of Abraham
Lincoln as President. It is not necessary to re-view the de
bates in tbe convention that framed the Constitution. Courts,
without some special reason, never look behind a contract
to see what was proposed and what was rejected by the
parties thereto before signing. They look only at the con
tract — what the parties agreed to — and apply the law. On

168 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
the forefront of the compact between the States they stated
the reasons tbat moved them to form a Union — ^to-wit: "To
establish justice, to insure domestic tranquiUty, to provide
for the common defense, to promote the general weKare, and
to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their
posterity," And we are bound to assume, as a fact, just as
judges in forming their judgments assume a fact as proven,
or admitted, in open court, that tbe people of each State
entered into that compact for the reasons so explicitly stated
by them, and, second, tbat the reasons stated were the only
inducement for forming a union, and, as a conclusion of law,
that the attainment of each and all of those ends — ^five in
number— constituted the only consideration moving each
State to enter into the Union, This being unquestionably true,
it follows that any voluntary action of any of the parties
(States) to the compact that defeated the attainment of aU,
or any one of those considerations, was a breach of the com
pact and made it void, or voidable at tbe will of any of the
innocent or unoffending parties.
For more than a century before the Union was formed,
negro slavery had been a social and labor institution in a ma-
, jority of the States, and was such in every State when the
Constitution was adopted. It is history known of all men
that the negro slavery subject caused more trouble in the con
vention that framed the Constitution than any other subject.
It is, also, indisputable tbat unless negro slavery had been
recognized and protected in express terms by the contract, or
compact, the efforts of tbe convention would have been in
vain, and there would have been no Union between the States,
Negro slavery is recognized three times in the Constitution:
First, in the apportionment of Representatives in Congress by
including in the population of each State "the whole number
of free persons, including those boimd to service for a term
of years, and three-fifths of all other persons;" second^ by
limiting the importation of slaves to the year 1808 ; and, third,
in Art. IV, Sec, Tl, Par, 3, that provides for delivery to the
master of fugitive slaves. These clauses were inserted to in
sure an agreement by the convention and adoption by the
States. They were sine qua non. Without them the Union

TRUE VINDICATIQN OF THE SOUTH 169
was impossible ! These facts no man not an ignoramus, or at
heart a despot, will deny. *
Only two more steps are needed to conclude this view of
the right of the Southern States to secede in 1861. Tbe first
is to state the law. It is laid down by Vattel, 5th Ed/, pages
260-261, Sec. 296: ¦ "If it be certain and manifest that the
consideration of the present state of things was one of the
considerations tbat occasioned the promise — that the promise
was made in consideration or in consequence of tbat state of
things — ^it (the obligation of the promise) depends on the
preservation of things in the same state. This is evident,
since the' promise was made only upon that supposition.
When, therefore, that state of things which was essential to
the promise, and without which it certainly would not have
been made, happens to be changed, tbe promise falls to the
ground when its foundation fails. * * * That state of
things alone, in consideration of which the promise was made,
is essential to the promise. Such is tbe sense in which we are
to understand that maxim of the civilians — Conventio onmis
inteUigitiir rebus sic stantibus — that is, "every agreement is
to be construed according to surrounding conditions at the
time it was made."
The second step is to take a retrospect to determine whether
the same state of things in relation to negro slavery existed
m 1861 as in 1788, when the slave States agreed to the con
tract called the Constitution. Tbe transition is tbe most start
ling and horrible known in any seventy years in the world's
history. It is like passing from alovefeast into pandemonium,
like turning from tbe cheery music of Christmas bells to hear
the ravings of maniacs chained in a madhouse. We will pause
a moment to Adew the scene. We see the architects and buUd-
ers of the last Temple of Freedom, with joyous faces, file out
and pause on the Parian threshold on a golden day; whUe the
sun throws his noonday splendors as a benediction upon them.
Looking around on tbe seeming faultless sky they see just
above the Northern horizon a smaU cloud not bigger than a
man's hand. It wears an ominous portent. It holds the
patriot's gaze. It has a perfidious aspect. Soon it begins to
sweU and take on a darker hue. It expands slowly with ser-

170 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
pontine trail towards the east, then -with tortuous movement
to the west. As it grows, the darker it becomes. Soon a faint
lurid flash is seen, as when the ¦viper thrusts out its venomous
tongue. As its dismal wings expand, its horrid (frest by leaps
and bounds invades the upper air now trembling at its dread
approach. Now day is obscured, and thick, plunging bUlows
of darkness roll and leap as when by fury the ocean's deep
is seized and in masses thro^wn as a challenge in the face of
Heaven, Over tbe sun is now spread tbe black veil — the sym
bol of death, and night is swallowing up tbe day.
Now a low grumbling sound breaks on the ear like the
deep-throated menace of the lion disturbed in his midnight
lair in a far off jungle, A sudden flash, making the darkness
visible, leaps through the tumultuous, rushing gloom, leaving
a momentary rKt through which strangely demoniac figures
appear. As we gaze, we doubt the faithfulness of our senses.
We see short-haired women and long-haired men rushing peU-
mell from East to West, then from West to East, mounting
platforms, pulpits, stumps, waving their arms like flails
threshing grain — shouting — screaming — yelling, as K in agony
from burning garments. We see them raise high in the air
children black as the surrounding cloud — ^kiss them — embrace
them — and cry "freedom! freedom! freedom!" Rushing by
comes a negro chased by bloodhounds gnashing and tearing
her clothes and flesh, A moment, and we bear the rumble of
a train rushing along a subterranean way at midnight. We
see It emerge, and its sable, mongrel cargo leap into the arms
of the shouting, screaming, yeUing short-haired women and
long-haired men who cry "freedom! freedom! freedom!"
Then the cargo is again stowed away and the train rashes
on— on — into the resons of the frozen North,
Suddenly, a lurid stream of Ught leaps from the Atlantic
to the Pacific abreast the raging cloud, and, behold! it is re
solved into miUions of human forms with faces black with
envy, rage and maUce, and then from out the West rises a
figure— taU, unshapen, and gaunt; unknown to fortune and
to fame, his origin a mystery, only recognized as one of a
million fanatics. By this brand the images knew him and
haUed him as Chief. From the cloud, adulation Uke a tempest

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 171
burst upon him, and on it he rose and trod upon the necks
supinely stretched, like Jupiter enthroned on Olympus, jest
ing with the -vulgar, while pollution flowed 'from his lips, until
a Ughtning bolt struck the Temple of Liberty, which fell with
a roar heard around the earth. Then followed a sound like
a distant echo of the temple, and the Ruler of the storm bowed
his head never to rise again.
In the year 1776 tbe thirteen colonies made their Declara-
.tion of Independence, to maintain which they pledged to each
other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. In
the year 1778 they formed "a league of friendship witb each
other for their common defense, the security of their liberties
and their mutual and general weKare; binding themselves to
assist each other against aU force offered to, or attacks made
upon them, on account of reUgion, sovereignty, trade, or any
other pretense whatsoever, ' ' Tn the year 1787 they met again
and made a third agreement, — "to establish justice, insure
domestic tranquiUty, provide for the common defense, pro
mote the general weKare, and to secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity,"
¦ As has been shown, in tbe third agreement the thirteen States
made two special provisions for tbe security of that class of
property kno-wn as negro slaves then owned by citizens of
each State — the only kind of property thus recognized for
protection, and tbe bnly property that delayed for many
weeks the agreement. As the pledge of protection was neces
sary to a consummation of the agreement, and without it the
Union could not bave been formed, witb honorable men that
pledge would have been held more sacred than any other. The
other provisions were matters of accommodation, of conipro-
mise, as could be easily demonstrated, while this one — ^protec
tion to this property, which had become a part of the social
and economic condition of all the States; whicl}, under con
trol, was contributing to the "general welfare," but, free'
and imrestrained, was known to be dangerous to and subvers
ive of "domestic tranquility" — ^was the indispensable prere
quisite to the contract.
Yes— among men of honor, this obligation could not have
been violated. Honorable men, who had sold these slaves to

172 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

Southern men and had invested the purchase money in stocks,
bonds, mills and factories, and grovm rich on that slave trade,
would never bave considered for a moment a proposition to
wrest that property from the men they sold it to, nor from
their children.
Yes— honorable men, some of the slarve traders who sold
the slaves to the South, and who bad inherited the stocks,
bonds, mUls, factories, and other property, purchased with
that blood-money, and who were thereby living in ease, com
fort, luxury and splendor, would not have raised a finger nor
spent a dollar to wrench that property from the chUdren, who
bad committed no greater offense than holding what they had
inherited. Yes — men of honor — saying nothing of Christian men —
would never have repudiated tbe contract of their fathers and
have refused to pay back that blood-money, and have hired
Hessians to invade the homes of men who had paid to their
fathers full price for the property — ^to shoot fathers and sons
— impoverish wives and children — and to free slaves their
fathers had made slaves of, and had been fattened by that in
famous piracy and traffic.
Honorable men — sons of honorable men — ^would not repu
diate their fathers' contract by which they bad reaped billions
of dollars, and denounce their fathers as parties to "a cove
nant -with Death and an agreement witb HeU," and revel in
the swag they had raked from "an agreement -with HeU."
These are acts no honorable men woiUd have done. Let us
now see what was done. To tbe first Congress assembled
under tbe Constitution of 1787 a petition was presented asking
for the abolition of negro slavery. That was followed by an
other and larger Uke petition to the second Congress. And
there was no Congress, from the first to tbe one in 1859, that
did not receive this petition. Tn vain did Congress pass Reso
lutions declaring tbat Congress bad no jurisdiction over slav
ery. In vain did Congressmen tell their constituents that it
was idle to send those petitions to Congress, Tn vain did Con
gress lay them on the table or order them to the wastebaskefel
Signatures multiplied by hundreds, then by thousands and by
tens of thousands. By the year 1820, so fanatical on slavery

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 173
had the Northern people become, that a bitter contest occurred
in Congress over the admission of Missouri into \ the Union.
The opposing forces were anti-slavery. The result was tbe
memorable compromise — called the Missouri Compromise —
that forbade negro slavery north of Missouri, or the paraUel
of 36° 30'. That bitter conflict divided the Union into two
sections, ever since called The North and The South — a bap
tism ordained by Nature, and a divorce from bed and board
compeUed by Fanaticism. This was the first clanging of "the
fire beU" dreaded so much and predicted by Thomas Jeffer
son, During the decade foUowing 1820 the agitation at the
North for aboUtion of slavery grew apace, A torch was
throvm. into the stubble by legislation forced through Con
gress by the avarice of the Puritans. It was the tariff law
that South Carolina strenuously opposed, even to the verge of
hosfiUties, by what was called NulUfication. This brought on
, the celebrated debate in 1830 bet-ween Robert Y. Hayne of
South Carolina and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts — ^the
two most antipodal States in the Union, Tn that debate, for
the first time after the Constitution was adopted, was the
opinion announced, in solemn form, by any statesman, tbat a
State had no right to secede from the Union, In 1833 the de
bate was resumed by Mr. Webster and John C, Calhoun, when
Webster, emboldened by the fame won in the debate with
Hayne, advanced a step further and proclaimed the law under
and by virtue of the Constitution to be that Secession would
be rebelUon and revolution.
Just here the path we are traveUng can be greatly illum
ined by ha-ving Ught from the rear thrown upon it, as hunters
at night the better see the game they are seeking. We are
now in the year 1833. In a prior chapter we have learned
that, from the day the Union by consent was formed, no man
questioned the right of a State to secede. Washington and
Hamilton— both Federalists — so beUeved. They considered
the Union as tentative or an experiment. The people of New
England so beUeved. Daniel Webster, we have seen, in the
Pramingham Resolutions addressed to President Madison, so
contended. He wrote the Resolutions. The Hartford Conven
tion in 1814 so spoke. Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts, made

174 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
a speech in the House of Congress in favor of the right of
Secession. William EUery Chaiming, one of New England's
foremost divines, favored Secession to be rid of slavery. A
Northern repubUc was advocated in New England to be com
posed of Free States. During these forty-six years this be
lief in peaceful and rightful secession prevailed throughout
the Union. Now, apply again the rale " cotemporanea expo-
sitio est optima ' ' — the opinion of those cotemporaneous vrith
any matter, event, or writing, the meaning of which is in
question, is the best evidence of its purpose or meaning —
and, as tbe Constitution is absolutely negative on the ques
tion of secession, we are bound to accept the opinion of the
men not only cotemporaneous with, but who took part in mak
ing, the compact or contract between tbe States. But as we
proceed we shall get more of this light coming from the same
source. We resume the narrative from the year 1833.
Mr. Webster won such reno-wn by his arguments in the
Dartmouth College case and in the ease of Gibbons vs. Ogden,
that he was crowned "The Great Expounder of the Constitu
tion." This halo covered him in the debates with Hayne and
Calhoun. Hence, the North greeted him -with hosannas as he
declared Secession nothing less than Rebellion and Revolution.
His finesse, his assumption that the States were subordinate
to the federal government, that the Constitution alone was the
law, were questions beyond popular understanding, and his
conclusion was accepted by the fanatics of the North on his
ipse dixit. It was ex cathedra. Here was ground to stand
upon. Between 1820 and 1833 the nebulous elements of anti-slav
ery had been gravitating towards a common centre. In 1835
they began to unite in societies for the aboUtion of slavery,,
to agitate, to muster recruits. We bave the record in the
chapter on Daniel Webster that in the year 1837 there were
societies organized and in full blast to propagate abolitionism
throughout the Free States, and that they thereafter multi
plied in almost geometrical ratio. The members in that year
were 158,000. To record a hundredth part of the deeds of
those fanatics, even to catalogue their speeches, pamphlets,
-writings in the press, and sermons, to give the names of their

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 175
speakers — ^male and female, and their places of meeting to
portray the horrors of negrq slavery their fathers had estab
Ushed in the South, would fill a large book. However, there
are sufficient facts for future historians to base their de
cision on when they shaU decide whether the South was more
than justified in leaving the company she had accepted in
1787 as Ufe-companions, and a few of these facts will now be
recorded. As they are a part of the coimtry's history, well
kno-wn and indisputable, no space need be given to references,
to books and pages.
One of the methods of campaigning was tbe establishment
of the "underground railroad." Its freight was negro slaves
only, escaped or stolen from their Southern masters. They
were spirited away -with hot haste to safe seclusion in North-
em States and to Canada. To insure a valuable cargo, emis
saries were sent through the §outh as sneak-thieves. Often
the Bible was used as the jimmy to unlock "the shackles and
fetters the groaning slaves were dragging by day at his
work." Colporteurs would saunter through the South osten
sibly selling Bibles. That holy mission gained admission to
and hospitable entertainment in the best homes. They were
sped with blessings and -words of cheer for their good work
for the salvation of sinners. They meet a negro — talk of tho
horror of slavery — ^the glory, the ease, tbe luxury of freedom
in their country. The negro is willing, a night rendezvous i£
agreed on, and they start post-haste to that land of freedoia
and no work. Among the honest, trusting, unsuspecting
i Southerners the trick was turned "as easy as lying," The
master, the next day, supposed as the worst that the negro
had run away. He could not imagine that the Christian
gentleman wearing his Ufe out selling Bibles to redeem lost
souls, had any possible connection with the absence of his
slave. Sometimes, but rarely, the pious thief was suspected,
pursued and caught. In a few instances he was punished in
a manner that reminded him of the Quakers whom his sainted
Pilgrim Fathers tied to cart-tails and whipped through three
towns — ^not, however, for stealing, but for not taking off thei?
hats.

176 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
This method of stealing was on land, but the ocean on
whose bosom the piracy of the negroes' ancestors was carried
on by the Puritans, was not neglected. New England then
monopolized the coastwise trade with tbe Southern States,
This scheme was worked: Negroes, instead of white men,
would be articled as sailors on ships coming to Southern
ports. During the stay in port, unloading merchandise and
loading cotton and rice, the negro sailors were in constant as
sociation witb the stevedore's slaves. The Yankee negro
would fill the slaves with all the good things in the land o£
Canaan — ^with its mUk and honey — ^the grapes of Eschol—
and no work — and at the hour of saUing stow them away
below and the trick was turned. There was no telegraph to
intercept and to order arrest at the Northern port. There
was no remedy. Even the mighty "Sovereign" Federal Gov
ernment, -with its army and navy could do nothing for the
master. This method of stealing the property the Puritans had sold
to Southerners was conducted to such an extent that the
citizens of Charleston, South Carolina, felt compelled to have
negro sailors arrested — ^put in jail — and held there until the
hour for the ship to weigh anchor. This action, in self-
defense, caused a protest by the people of Massachusetts.
They sent Mr. George Hoar as commissioner to Charleston to
call her citizens to accorint for "incarcerating the free citizens
of Massachusetts without authority of law," Mr. Hoar was
made to understand that K Massachusetts or Boston, would
send to South Carolina white men as sailors and keep their
free negro sneak-thieves at home South Carolina's jails would
not be burdened with negro sailors while in port. This incident
made the municipalities at the other Southern ports more wary,
and theft by stowing slaves was not so successful thereafter.
But the underground railroads multiplied. Northern termini
were established along the length of Mason and Dixon's line,
and west of Missouri depositaries were chosen to receive the
stolen slaves and to conceal or forward them fuirther North, The
Southern termini were afloat, or on foot, in every Southern
State where the pious Bible colporteurs might wander. And

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 177

there was more rejoieing, at each Northern terminus, over one
negro saved by theft, than over ninety-nine thieves converted
and saved from the gaUows.
This rebeUion against the Constitution that guaranteed
protection to slave property; this open, flagrant violation of
the Commandment against stealing; this destruction of "do
mestic tranquiUty;" this fanaticism on slavery — successor to
and continuation of the Puritan's fanaticism on religion, was,
at first, among fanatics of the lower social order. It was a
kitchen rebelUon against aU law and order. They played on
the passions of the groundlings — ^the lowest stratum lying
close to the negro. This is shown by the fact that William
Lloyd Garrison, then in obscurity, who was printing a four
page quarto sheet — in a back alley in Boston — called "The
Liberator," was seized on the street in 1835 by a mob that
resented his incessant caterwauling over the negro, and was
dragged along a street by a rope around his neck. About the
same tune another garret editor, named Lovejoy, in southern
Illinois, was attacked by a mob, his office destroyed, and he was
killed. As the tide of fanaticism rose high in after years, his
brother, Owen, mounted it and rode into Congress.
Although the agitation for abolition started in the base
ment, it rapidly gained recruits. Daiuel Webster, in bis
speech at Plymouth Rock in 1820, said that at least a million
sons of New England had migrated to the Western States.
They went to teach, to seek fortunes, to grow up -with the
coimtry. Being better educated than their pioneer neighbors,
many were chosen as Congressmen. They went West as
propagandists of all New England's ideas. Without statistics,
we must assume that many hundred thousands of women, also,
went from New England to the Western States, as wives and
as teachers. Here was enough inflammable material to set
the prairies on fire, and to account for the rapid spread of
the Abolitionists. In 1833 Great Britain freed her slaves in
the West Indies. The Puritans — ^who for two hundred years
had never been capable of seeing any wisdom, justice or
honor in any act of the British, or their Parliament or King —
looking through the medium of fanaticism, saw justice in that
emancipation, and were fired to follow in her footsteps. The

178 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
omnipotence of Parliament to legislate on aU matters, and the
impotence of Congress to touch the institution of slavery;
the protection guaranteed by the Cdnstitution to slavery in
the States; the sovereignty of the States that protected them
from interference — ^were no obstacles in the way of fanatic
ism. The fact that Parliament paid the British slaveholders
four hundred million dollars to compensate them for their
property set free, and the fact that New England had gained
billions of dollars from the South by sale of slaves to it, and
by the increase of that purchase money, did not disturb the
souls of the fanatics.
"Fanaticism," says Dr. Isaac Taylor, "is enthusiasm in-
fiamed by hatred. It rushes on, it knows not whither." The
Southern slave owners were hated by these fanatics. This is
demonstpted by the vile epithets appUed to the Southerners
in their speeches, lectures, newspapers, and all kinds of liter
ature.

CHAPTER XXIV.
THE LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE
QUESTION.
Did the Southern States have the right to secede from the
federal Union? There are two views of this momentous ques
tion. The first involves law only; the second embraces both
law and facts — that is, matters in pais. The first can be de
termined by the Law of Nations ; the second must be decided
by the same law and the facts, or the political condition exist
ing between the States in 1861. The first -view can be confined
to the law as it was in 1804, when the 12tb amendment to the
federal constitution was adopted, because from that date to
1861 no change in the law affecting the relations of the States
was made. On the first branch of the question an extended
argument is not needed, because much of tbe law has already
been herein presented. Still, on account of the importance
of the result to be attained, some of the law hitherto stated
must be repeated. The second branch will require more space,
as much of tbe history made by the Northern or Free States
must be recited.
When Great Britain declared each of the States — then, as
now, called "United States," naming them from New Hamp
shire to Georgia — "to be Sovereign, Free and Independent,"
all the States were confederated under an agreement called
"Articles of Confederation." In and by the second Article
each State declared emphatically that she was "free, sovereign
and independent." The thirteen States on that understand
ing proceeded to form what they named "a league of friend
ship," To prove what they said, it is best to let them speak.
The first article reads — "The style of this coiKederacy shall
be The United States of America."
Article IT. "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom
and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right
which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the
United States in Congress assembled."

180 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Article III. "The said States hereby severally enter into
a firm league of friendship with each other for their common
defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and
general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other
against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or
any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
other pretense whatever,"
There are several rules courts apply in construing aU in
struments in -writing of whatever nature. One to be appUed
now and throughout this discussion, is of such general use
among civilized peoples that it may be ranked as one of the
Laws of Nations. It is — " Contemporanea ©xpositio est op
tima" — ^the understanding of the meaning of any -writing or
custom of those who were contemporaneous with the ¦writing
or custom is the best evidence of its meaning. Apply this
irule to the Articles of Confederation. We are to assume that
they meant what they said, as there is no ambiguity in any
, word they wrote. What did they mean by the words "each
State retains?" One can not retain what be has not. But
each State retained its sovereignty, freedom and independ
ence, and every power, jurisdiction and right. Here are two
separate classes of attributes spoken of. The first three are
sovereignty, freedom and independence, connected and united
into one group by the copulative conjunction "and;" the
next three, while connected by the same conjunction, are dis
severed and singularized by the word "every" — every power,
every jurisdiction and every right. This is not only proven
by using the word "every," but is doubly proven by the sin
gular verb "is," of which every power, etc., is the nomina
tive. Again: "Every power," etc., "which is not by this con
federation expressly" — given away? granted to?-ino! "ex
pressly delegated to"— what? To the United States? Far
from it,— but "to the United States in Congress assembled!"
Again: In the last paragraph, before their attestation,
the delegates -wrote — "Know ye, That we the undersigned
delegates in the name and behalf of our respective constitu
ents" * • • "and we do further solemnly pUght and engage
the faith of our respective constituents." Then they signed—

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH^lSl
"On the part and behalf of the State of New Hampshire;"
every delegate repeating those words before the name of his
State. As in a prior chapter the meaning of "delegated" was
given, no words are required here to show the wide difference
between it and the word "granted." Few words in English
are more distinctive. A person grants by title, and the thing
granted is no longer his; he delegates the exercise of power
or authority that remain in him.
It is true that the Articles of Confederation wef e agreed ,
to by the State five years before they won their independence,
but when subjects revolt against their sovereign, as did tbe
thirteen colonies, and they declare themselves to be free and
independent, when they succeed, by the Law of Nations their
freedom relates back to the date of their declaration. There
fore, we must assume tbat when the Confederation was formed
the people of each State believed their State was sovereign,
as they declared, and that the people of each State were, from
1783, absolutely sovereign. So it appears by the plain and ex
plicit language written in tbe Articles of Confederation, —
First: That each State was a distinct society, known in
the Law of Nations as a nation.
Second: That each State, as a nation, entered into the
agreement to form a Confederation.
Third : That each State announced its sovereignty.
Fourth: That each State expressly declared its purpose
to remain as sovereign while in the Confederation as it was
before becoming a member of that "league of friendship."
FKth : That each State declared that it only delegated to
the United States, in Congress assembled, the power to exer
cise the powers, jurisdiction and right of each State named in
the Articles of Confederation.
Sixth : That each State emphasized its separate action by
using the word "severally," and the words "each other" in
the third Article.
Seventh: That one of the reasons for forming the con
federation was to mak§ common catise against "aU attacks
upon them or any of them on account of sovereignty," ete.

182 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Eighth : Another reason was to resist any attack on any
of them on account of reUgion.
The Nationalists' contention (and by it they must stand
or fall) is, that the consolidated Nation was formed by the
Articles of Confederation, which was afterwards renovated
and caUed tbe Constitution; tbat sovereignty was granted to
the United States, which they construe to mean and to be the
federal govemment. If so, ¦vrill they explain what the States
or people meant by a common defense of the Confederation's
"religion?" They assert that the Confederation had, and
that its successor, the United States, bave sovereignty. But
how about the Confederation's religion? Can they explain
how a corporation can get religion — can be "converted";
what spiritual relation a corporation has with its Maker —
whether the Maker be the New Jersey legislature or thirteen
States, or "We, the people?"
When we see the Confederation as tbe States or the peo
ple of each State saw it, we can understand whose religion
and whose sovereignty were to be defended. We can under
stand what thirteen men all named Smith, or Hercules — each
with a large family — mean when they pledge themselves "to
assist each other against all the attacks made on any of them
on account of bis religion. This comment on the word "re
ligion" is made, because, being one of the things eaeh State
was to assist any other State in defending, and being con
nected directly with "sovereignty" in the same sentence, it
is proof of whose sovereignty each State, or the people of each
State, had in mind. The States, in Articles of Confederation,
entriisted the management of their .affairs to a Congress. It
was Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. Bach State sent
Delegates — ^none sent less than two nor more than seven— and
no delegate could serve more than three years,_ and each
State could "recall" her delegates at any time within the
year and send others. Article V is illuminating on the pur
pose of the States as well as on what they meant by the phrase
"United States." It reads: "For the more convenient
management of the general interests of the United States,
delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the
Legislature of each State shaU direct, to meet in Congress."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 183
What possible "general interests" had or could have the
United States as an organization distinct and separate from
the "general interests" of each State? There were not and
there can not possibly be any general interests other than
those of human beings — either singly or in association. What
human beings were there to constitute tbe United States?
There can not possibly be sovereignty without people under
it, or constituting it. Therefore, tbe "general interests" were
those of the several sovereign States, and the United States in
Congress assembled was nothing more than the delegates each
State chose in the manner it might adopt, and whom the
States could recall at wiU.
The Confederation became operative March 2nd, 1781,
when the first Congress met. This was two years before tbe
war ended and Great Britain acknowledged each State to be
sovereign, free and independent, what each State had claimed
in the Articles of Confederation, to say nothing of their claim
in the Declaration of Independence. The Confederation con
tinued until it was superseded by the Union organized in con
formity to the Constitution in 1788. It proved to be a lame
and impotent conclusion. It was ill constructed. It was a
botch. Independence being won, each State, being sovereign
in fact and not merely in theory, or on paper, began to pay
more attention to its o^wn affairs, and neglected the obliga
tions of the league of friendship. Taxes were shunned; the
pubUc debt was pressing ; the infidelity of some States became
intolerable, and, finaUy, the statesmen and men of honor and
of foresight decided tbat another confederation was neces
sary in order to make sure the blessings of life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness for them and their posterity.
This sketch of the Confederation brings us to what was
done in pursuance of the opinions of those wise men who saw
the necessity of forming what they called "a more perfect
i p Union" — a phrase not very apt, as the federation was about
as imperfect as any known in modem history. Still, while
the phrase is not up to the standard of Lindley Murray's
grammar, its deficiency in that respect makes it a most valu
able and perfectly reliable witness to prove what the framers
of the new govemment intended to do. Here is a declaration

184 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

in most solemn form that Union of the States and Confedera
tion of the States were employed as equivalent terms. The
States were in the Confederation at the date these words— "a
more perfect Urdon" — ^were written, and to form a Union
more perfect was equivalent to saying "this Union is to be
better than tbe Union we are in now called a confederation;"
Whether the several thirteen separate and distinct societies
from New Hampshire through to Georgia were each sovereign
when they entered into a confederation before they achieved
their independence of Great Britain, is not of so much im
portance in this discussion as is the -written record that each
declared itseK to be sovereign, and with that distinct under
standing on the threshold, agreed to the stipulation thereafter
¦written. Further, each one declared in the same breath that it in
tended to retain its sovereignty. Again, they said, each and
all, that they only delegated to their common agent the exer
cise of some of their sovereign powers. Finally, there is not
a clause, sentence, or word in aU the Articles that is in con
flict with those three declarations. Therefore, we not only
have the right to assume, but we are compeUed to admit, that
the Confederation was formed by thirteen sovereigns. But,
K any question could be raised against that conclusion, cer
tainly no doubt can be thro-wn on tbe sovereignty of each
State when Great Britain released her bond of aUegiance to
her and announced to the world the sovereignty of each —
calling each by name. That this poUtical supremacy con
tinued from 1783 to 1787, when they adopted the new Con
federation under the same name of United States, no man has
ever had the hardihood to question, and no statesman, if
honest, could doubt.
From these facts of history we find thirteen States sover
eign by their own declaration in 1778 ; we find the same States
declared by their former sovereign king, in 1783, to be as
sovereign as he was, and we find the same States holding their
sovereignty from 1783 to 1788. The next question is — did
they surrender that sovereignty by forming another federa
tion called a Union? This brings us to view what they said
in the new agreement. While considering this question we

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 185
must look through the agreement itself to know what the
thirteen sovereigns said, and we must take with us that code
of laws made by enUghtened Nations, which is not only the
supreme law of mankind, but is so absolute in authority that
no nation can possibly escape it. No agreement, compact,
federation, or treaty made by two or more sovereigns can
change, or disavow the Law of Nations. Each of the thirteen
sovereign States was in a compact, with its obligations and
duties, when they signed the agreement eaUed the Constitu
tion. Did they cease to be sovereign by making that agree
ment? As they were unquestionably sovereign before they
made it, the affirmative that they lost their status as sover
eign nations must be sustained by those who so assert. The
contention that they did not — ^that they are to-day what they
were in 1783 — ^has been presented in several prior chapters —
one on State-Rights, the other on Sovereignty.

CHAPTER XXV.
THE QUESTION AS VIEWED IN 1787.
To get a correct view of the rights of tbe States we must,
first, stand in the year 1787, and look at the question as it
was viewed then; and, second, we must read the Constitution
as its full text was after the first ten amendments were added.
In the first view we see bow the Constitution was under
stood by the statesmen who framed and adopted it; and from
the second we get the covenant, agreement, compact, or bar
gain — (the name is immaterial) — ^that ,was entered into by the
States. We then apply the law governing the judicial constmc
tion of that and similar writings, and decide what the intent
and purpose of its makers were when they agreed to it, and,
two years after, amended it.
That there were thirteen sovereign States no rational mind
can question. The statesmen who acted to send deputies to
Philadelphia to take counsel together and to draw up an agree
ment to be submitted to the States for approval or rejection,
knew that the people of each State acted for and by themselves.
And the deputies so knew, because they signed the paper they
agreed to as from and representing separate States. Washingtoii.;
signed — ' ' George Washington, deputy from Virginia. ' ' And the
others wrote first the name of the State they were from and
signed their names tbereimder. When these deputies adjourned
the Convention, they returned to their respective States and
submitted the writing to the legislatures of the States. Bach-
legislature then issued a caU to the people, the citizens and
voters, of the State to select delegates to a convention, repre
senting all the people of tbe States in their sovereign character
and capacity, to consider and decide whether they would accept
or reject the proposed Constitution. Then a Convention was
held in each State, no two States acting at the same time or
place, and the Constitution was ordained, ratified and adopted.
We have here, so far, the history of the action of the people
who framed and adopted the Constitution. We thus know what
they did. We wiU next see what they said. The best evidence
of what they said is in the ¦writing they signed — ^the Constitution
itseK.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 187
After proclaiming to the world, in five lines, called the pre-
ample, the objects they hoped to accomplish, the first thing said
was a declaration that recognized the States — "All legislative
powers herein granted shaU be vested in a Congress of the
IJiuted States" — ^not in the people, not in a legislature — but in
a Congress. What is the meaning of Congress ? Webster says
(definition 5) : "An assembly of envoys, commissioners, depu
ties, etc., particularly a meeting of sovereign princes, or of the
representatives of several courts, for the purpose of arranging
mternational affairs." Tbe prime and paramount object of the
States in forming the federal government was to ' ' arrange inter
national affairs" — things that each State acting alone could
not do as well as aU acting together through a common agent.
"A meeting of sovereigns for tbe purpose of arranging inter
national affairs." Senators are called ambassadors from tbe
States. Here is a recognition of States united, but each to act
as a sovereign and to send Representatives, and each two
Senators who wUl meet in a Congress to legislate for the benefit
of the States, or tbe people therein. No single State or sov
ereignty had ever called its legislative body a congress, but
assemblages of ambassadors, envoys or other representatives of
sovereigns had often been called Congresses.
The next section prescribes how this Congress shall be com
posed and chosen. It is composed of Representatives chosen
by each State^^the number being apportioned by the number
of inhabitants in each State, and of Senators chosen by the
legislature of each State ; two from each State ; which number
can not be increased nor diminished, nor shall any State at any
time be without a Representative.
"No person shall be a Representative who shall not when
elected be an inhabitant of tbat State in which he shall be
chosen." This is one of the most important of State rights.
It rules out carpetbaggers. The third paragraph declares that
the Union is not composed of "We, the people." It reads:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among
the several States which may be included within tbe Union."
The Union is composed of States — as political corporations, or
autonomies ; that is, as sovereigns.

188 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
(Par. 4.) When vacancies occur in the House of Represen
tatives the State fiUs the vacancy. The United States govem
ment has no lot or part in getting Representatives in Congress.
(Sec, 3, Par, 1,) Bach State elects its two Senators. When
a vacancy occurs the Governor may fiU the vacancy imtil the
legislature may elect a Senator. Here the U. S. Government
has no voice. And should the legislature refuse to act, the
government has no power to choose a senator.
"No person shaU be a senator • * • -who sh&D. not,
when elected, be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall
be chosen." (Sec. 8.) "The Congress shaU have power —
First. To lay and coUect Taxes, Duties, Imports, and Ex
cises, to pay the debts and pro-vide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States." Here is recognition of
the States, as States. "To pay debts of the .United States"
means the debts of each State incurred during the seven years'
war. There were no Uiuted States when the Constitution was
written, and, of course, no debts of the United States. "To pay
the debts and provide for the common defense and general
weKare of the United States" means of the States when united.
"The common defense can not be appUed to one thing, person
or people. It means defense of all the States, nine or more, that
may be united under this Constitution. The same construction
applies to the words "general weKare."
Second. "To borrow money on the credit of the United
States ;" that is, on the credit of each State of the States united.
"The United States" is nothing more than a Trust Corporation,
a body politic, an imaginary thing, ha-ving nothing, owning
nothing, and holding public lands, buildings, ships, docks, etc.,
as trustee for the several States. Were the people, by vo-lje of
three-fourths of the States, to aboUsh the federal or confed
erate govemment, the forty-eight States would come into pos
session, as tenants in common, of all the general govemment
now holds in trust.
Third. "To provide for calling forth the mUitia to execute
the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel inva
sions." The Union of what? Of the govemment of the United
States? T|here can be no union of a single object, or thing, as

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 189
is a government. The laws of the Union— that is, laws made
by the States in Union or united.
Again: "To repel invasions." A corporation — a body
poUtic — can not be invaded. An invasion must be of something
corporal. There must be land or water. A State owns land and
can be invaded, but a government can not be invaded. The
thmg founded on the Constitution is a govemment and nothing
more. Article TV, Section TV, explains that this paragraph
means to protect each State from invasion.
Fourth. "To make aU laws which shall be necessary for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the Govemment of the
United States." Vested in the government; that is, vested in
the government, or common agent, herein provided for by the
several States united. The United States, or States united, the
States that may agree to this -writing or compact, do hereby
vest these powers in a government to be kno-wn as the United
States. Section IX contains the inhibitions of powers to the govem
ment and to the Congress.
Section X denies to each or any State the exercise of certain
powers, most of which the States, in a prior section had given
the Congress (that is, the States acting together) the right to
exercise. Article H provides exclusively for the Executive Department,
First. The States hold the commanding "right" to appoint
the men, or electors, who shall elect the President of the United
States. Without their action there is no President, no judiciary
and no government.
Second. The States refuse to let a Senator or Representa
tive, or any person holding any office under the government of
the Uiuted States, be an elector to elect a President.
Third. Should no one having a majority of the electoral
vote for President, the States hold the right to elect a President,
eaeh State having but one vote. In that event the smallest
State is the equal of the largest and most popiUous. Rhode
Island is the equal of New York. This is a very important State
right.

190 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Article IH relates to the Judicial Department.
Section 1, Par. 2. Jn a suit in which a State is a party the
Supreme Court oidy can take jurisdiction. And by Article XI
of the first twelve amendments to the Constitution, the States
reserved the right to be exempt from suit by citizens of another
State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State. This is
a right that belongs to every sovereign. It is worthy of note
that the States ratified the Constitution with a clause gi-ving
federal courts jurisdiction pver a State at the suit of citizens
of another State, and they withdrew that derogation of a sov
ereign's right within two years. It was resumed — ^not by "We,
the people," — ^but by the separate action and vote of three-
fourths of the States.
Article V is the most significant of aU on State rights. It
provides the method for amending the Constitution. Three-
fourths of the States agreeing can amend it to any extent, and
Mr. Webster admitted, in the speech under review, that three-
fourths of the States coiUd abolish the govemment of the United
States by their votes.
As soon as the govemment was organized the Congress,
composed, "of course, of citizens of the thirteen States, seeing
danger to the States as the Constitution then read, proposed to
the States twelve amendments, which were adopted by the States
at once. The first article of these amendments forbids Congress to
legislate either to estabUsh a religion or to prohibit the free
exercise thereof; or to abridge freedom of speech, or of the
press, or the right of petition.
Article H guarantees the right to bear arms.
Article HI forbids quartering soldiers in people's houses.
Article IV guarantees against unreasonable searches and
seizures. Article V provides for indictments; against being in jeop
ardy twice for the same offense; against any person's being
compelled to be a -witness against himself ; or deprived of life,
liberty or property -without due process of law; and against
taking private property for pubUe use ¦without just compen
sation. Article VI guarantees a speedy and public trial by an im
partial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 191
accusation; to be confronted by the witnesses against him; to
have compulsory process to get his witnesses, and to have a
lawyer to defend him.
Article VII relates to civil suits and right of trial by jury.
Article VHI forbids excessive bail or fines and cruel and
unusual punishments.
Here are twenty-six invaluable rights and exemptions se
cured to each citizen in every State, The ninth Article reads :
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the"
people." They are individual rights.
Articles X and XI relate to tbe rights of States as sov
ereigns. Article X. "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 to the people." Never
were words more aptly chosen to express with crystal clear
ness what the writer intended, "Reserved to the States respec
tively;" that is, to each and all States aUke — as if they were
tenants in common.
I have already spoken of Article XI as proof of the jealous
care with which each State was guarding its sovereign attri
butes, which Mr. Webster contended that the people, as one
body, had so lavishly showered on their agent as to destroy
their sovereignty and become dependencies or vassals.
The twelfth and last amendment, as already stated, was an
assertion of sovereignty that, at first thought, seems to over
throw the equality of representation. It is that, wben electors
faU to elect a President, the House of Representatives shall
chode, and in doing so, each State shall have but one vote.
This is an appUcation to our govemment by States of the
principle in the laws of nations, that the least kingdom, or
sovereignty, or sovereign, is the equal of the greatest. As
one authority puts it — "A dwarf is as much of a man as giant;
a small republic is no less a sovereign state than the most
powerful kingdom." Under the twelfth Article the thirteen
States agreed, and by written compact declared, that, as a
State, Rhode Island is as great as New York. No higher claim
of sovereignty can be made.

192 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
During forty years preceding the war of Abolition, "State'
Rights" was on the tongue of every man in public service.
Two schools of constructionists |;hat arose during Washing
ton's administration have been in hostile array to the present
time. One has persistently straggled to enlarge the powers
of the federal govemment, while tbe other has endeavored to
keep the government within the bounds set for it by the letter
of thfe law. At first, they were kno-wn as FederaUsts and
Republicans ; next as Whigs and Democrats, and, last, as Demo
crats and Republicans, The Federalists, led by Alexander
Hamilton, pitched their tent on tbe soft, elastic, amorphous
preamble and the "general weKare" clause. The Democrats
(the first Republicans) camped on the solid, rigid, unequivo
cal letter of the compact and bave never moved from that
position. The Federalists, Whigs and Black Republicans (as
tbe present party was caUed), endeavored, from the first ad
ministration, by latitudinous construction to -wrest the lan
guage of the Constitution so as to promote sectional and indi
vidual gain. The Republicans (as Democrats were first caUed),
and Democrats ever since, contended for strict constructioii
and for no sectional or individual advantage. The one looked
tn the federal government above the States; the other con
sidered every State as superior to the federal government,
and hence arose tbe contention for federal authority over the
States by one and for State rights by tbe other.
This issue, from the beginning, divided the Union into
sections, and negro slavery, soon after the di-vision began,
widened the breach until only two sections were spoken of-
the North and the South. "State rights" was the South's
special doctrine, as the expression went, and as slavery was
limited then to the South, the animosity of the North to the
South was so bitter that the word "State-rights" was despised j
by the Northern people, because, being a Southern doctrine,
it was associated -with slavery. To spCak of State-rights in
Congress, or at the hustings, North, was the signal for smiles,
jeers, guffaws, burlesque or ridicule. So far had self-interest
(that is Protection) seduced the Northern people from the
Golden Rule and blinded them to justice, and "their sacred
honor," that they not only hated the Southerners, but they
hated the word "State-rights," and, did not think that stealing

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 193
a negro was theft. As greed was the second strongest of aU
the Puritan's desires, he estimated the Union, or the govern
ment under the Union, in doUars and cents. He soon learned
that the States had no bounties to bestow and that each man
had to depend on his own energy, skUl, labor and hands. And
he soon saw that when Congress was legislating to raise money,
it was as easy as lying to add a little more as a rider that
foreign competitors would have to pay at the custom house
in order to seU their wares in America. That Uttle rider
would be that much cash in their pockets -without as much
labor as -winking the eye. What magician, what Fairy, what
ring, or lamp, has ever brought in imagination to princess, or
queen, such fabulous wealth as that lying juggler. Protection,
has stolen through hypocrisy and fraud from the common
people of the States and stealthily sluiced into the pockets of
Manufacturers? And this sluice has been running as steadUy
as Time for one hundred years, and a people who boast of
their courage and manhood have held up their hands to be
robbed and have tamely submitted ! It is not tbe subject of a
moment's wonder that the North, seventy years ago, decided
to uphold the general government, and to ignore tbe States and
to consider all States as merged into the United States govern
ment. That master passion of the Puritans — Greed, Avarice,
'"Covetousness — a passion, that for a hundred and fifty years
chaUenged the wild Atlantic to combat, from New England to
, Africa, for o-wnership of cargoes of negro slaves, was a solvent
for any obstacle that the States might interpose betw'feen it and
its real Eldorado.
State rights a myth? States subordinate to their creature,
the federal govemment? We have seen -written aU over the
face of the Constitution what the makers thought and said
of State rights, and what they thought of the government to
be erected on tbe Constitution, Witb one more view of what
the framers of that instrument were thinking, I shall close
this presentation of State rights.
The thirteen States framed the Constitution, The thirteen
States organized tbe federal government. The thirteen States
gave the law by which they, the States, and they only, can
alter, add to, or take from that Constitution. By that law
they did not invent the Congress nor all the departments of

194 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
the federal government acting together, with power to alter,
amend or even to touch the Constitution; nor was this power
given to the people, as there were no people but those who
were speaking and writing the words in the Constitution. Tliey
provided that three-fourths of all tbe States can add to, take
from or aboUsh altogether the Constitution. But it is nowhere
provided by word or impUcation that the federal government
can alter, add to, take from, or aboUsh the Constitution of
any State. The power to aboUsh was admitted by the "Great
Expounder of the Constitution'' in bis debate with Mr. Cal-
hoim. And whatever Mr. Webster admitted in that debate
against the position he assumed and against the interests of
his constituents, against New England and against the purse
of his cUents, I doubt that any statesman -wiU question or
deny. Thus it is seen as clear as language can make any
declaration :
First, That the States, as States, created the federal
govemment. Second. That the States only can alter the Constitution—
the only foundation the federal government rests on.
Third. Tbat the States can, at will, abolish the Constitu
tion, and, ex necessitate rei, destroy the entire superstructure
which is the federal govemment.
Fourth. That the federal government, the creature, has
no power to impair or to destroy a State govemment— its
creator. FKth. That K tbe federal government had power to de
stroy one State, it, a fortiori, would have power to destroy
all the States. But the federal government, by destroying
the States, would destroy itself, as its vitaUty and existence
depend on the voluntary support of a majority of the States,
It has already been sho-wn how the federal government by non
action of the States, can be destroyed, and, "like the baseless
fabric of a vision, leave not a rack behind."
Sixth. That the federal govemment, having no powers or
attributes that the States can not -withdraw, at will, is in no
particiUar a sovereignty, and as a corollary it foUows :
Seventh. That in creating the federal government, not one
attribute of sovereignty passed from the creator to the
creature.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH lf5
Eighth. . That each of thirteen sovereigns having agreed to
create a common agent for their common benefit and weKare,
and each having retained aU its sovereign attributes, the
agreements thus made by the laws of nations governing the
action of the sovereigns was a compact.
Ninth. By the Law of Nations, when a compact is entered
into by several sovereigns and no time is named for its duration,
the compact is terminable by any one of the sovereigns at
vrill, just as tbe law regulating co-partnerships permits a
partner to withdraw. If, however, injury be done to tbe other
party, or parties, to tbe compact, by the withdrawal or seces
sion, the party seceding is bound to make ample and full
reparation. This right of -withdrawal is an inaUenable attribute
of sovereignty. Tenth. It foUows from the foregoing premises that the
Southern Sovereign States, on seceding from the Union made
by the compact in 1787, only put into execution a power in
herent to and inseparable from sovereignty.

CHAPTER XXVI.
SECESSION A CONCRETE AS WELL AS AN
ABSTRACT RIGHT.
I have discussed the questions of State-rights; of the sov
ereignty of each of the States ; of the total lack of sovereignty
in the federal govemment; and of the inaUenable right of a
sovereign — ^whether a man, a nation or a repubUc — to with
draw from a compact formed with other sovereigns, but under
the obUgation imposed by the laws of nations to make
reparation to the co-compactors for any loss to them that the
¦withdrawal may cause. This obligation flows from the duty of
every sovereign to do justice to every nation and every indi
vidual, Tbe last view was presented to show the unquestion
able right of the Southern States to secede from the compact
of 1787, -with the obUgation on them to make reparation to the
States remaining in the Union for any loss they may have
sustained. The abstract right to secede being established, I
purpose in this chapter to show, a fortiori, their right in the
concrete, tbat is to say, their abstract right to secede not only
justified, but made a duty by the injustice and the remedUess
wrongs done the South by the Northern people and by the
Northern States.
To those who were not acquainted -with the people who
made up the States of the American Union, but who knew that
tbe colonies. North and South, were from England, and that
both made loud professions of Christian brotherhood and love
of liberty, the spectacle they beheld in the States in the year
1861 must have shaken their faith in the rule of democracy,
and have sunk the Christian reUgion to the level of
Mohammedanism. As to those who knew that the colonists in New England
were fanatics on reUgion, were avaricious to the degree of
making slaves of what they call their feUo-wmen and their
equals to get money, were erael to their o-wn race to the extent
of taking life on difference of opinion on metaphysical ques-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 197
tions, had stocked the Southern colonies with negro slaves, and
were m 1861 invading the Southern States to free the negro
slaves they "had sold to the South without offering to pay back
a dollar of the price they had received, — ^the dead on the bat
tlefield, the fiames licking to ashes homes two centuries old,
and the flight of the women and children by night, must have
convinced them that the invaders, as they were not aU lunatics,
were mo^ving under an impulse more powerful than any known
reUgion, idealism, idol worship, or common hatred. The
power of "Mammon led them on —
Mammon, the least erected spirit that fell
From Heaven ; for even in Heaven bis looks and thoughts
Were always downward bent, admiring more
The riches of Heaven's pavement, trodden gold.
Than aught divine, or holy, else enjoyed
In vision beatific,"
Those who had studied the course of the Puritans in
England — ^more vagrant than that of the wandering Ulysses;
as turbulent as the traitorous Catiline, and as much more pesti
lent as things spiritual are above things secular — a few zealots
striving to force on England a religion they did not wholly
embrace, and which had no better deflnition than hostility to
aU other reUgions ; those who kept step with them after they
got command in Massachusetts Bay; who saw their imitation
of and improvement on Bishop Laud's methods of persecution
and punishment ; the hanging of men and women not for heresy
but for nonconformity; their fleets of slave ships plying be
tween Massachusetts, Rhtode Island, Connecticut and Africa-
ballasted -with rum going, freighted to the gunwales with negro
slaves coming; who watched the violation of their plighted
faith and oaths to support the Constitution; who saw them by
deUberate legislation nullify the fugitive slave laws of Con
gress; who -witnessed the operation of the underground
railroad loaded -with property stolen from Southerners; who
saw Abraham Lincoln seek anxiously the Presidency at the
hands of a mob whose avowed purpose to free the slaves
Lincoln knew and had known for many years, and who heard
him proclaimed elected in November, 1860 — ^those disinterested

198 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
spectators would have justly denounced the men of the South
as cowards and degenerates, if they bad not seceded.
Mr. Webster submitted four propositions in reply to Cal
houn which he contended to be the law of the Constitution*
The first and second I have already discussed. The fourth
bears directly on the question I am now considering, and is as
follows :
"That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul or nulUfy
an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation -within her limits
on the ground that in her opinion such law is unconstitutional,
is a direct usurpation of the just powers of the general govem
ment and of the equal rights of other States ; a plain -violation
of the Constitution and a proceeding essentiaUy revolutionary
in its character and tendency."
"I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word!" A quo
tation worn from use, but a bit too palpable, here, to be
overlooked. 11 this master of words, by prophetic vision had
seen what the legislatures of eleven Northern States did after
that speech, by passing acts expressly to nullify the act of
Congress called the "Fugitive Slave Law", his language, just
quoted, is the very best he could have employed to define the
"revolutionary character" of the legislation of those States.
The Constitution has this clause; Art. IV, Sec. 2, Par. 3. "No
person held to Service, or Labour, in one State, imder the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any
Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service
and Labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
whom such Service or Labour shall be due." It has never
been doubted, by la-wyers and Judges, but has been denied by
Northern negro-thieves, that the "persons held to service"
means only fugitive negro slaves. Eleven Northern States
"attempted to abrogate, annul and nuUKy two Acts of Con
gress, and to arrest their operation -within the limits of eaeh
of those eleven States," and that, as Mr. Webster truly said,
was "a plain violation of the Constitution, and a proceeding
essentially revolutionary." If the attempt to nuUify a tariff law
be revolutionary the attempt to nulUfy a Statute of Congress
requiring deUvery of an ovmer's slave on demand, is revolu
tionary. The latter case is much stronger than the former)

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 199
because the Constitution provides in express words for the
o^wner to have his slave, whereas, there is not a wprd in the
Constitution about the tariff, or protection, or fostering one
industry at the expense of aU others. While it is the law that
Congress can raise revenue by levying imposts, it is undeniable
that Congress cannot lawfully lay imposts so heavy as to
oppress A to benefit B. Where the limit of its power to levy
that tax lies, is the debatable ground. South Carolina believed
Congress had gone beyond that limit, and that her reserved
right to interfere was, therefore, lawful.
To say her constitutional right to interfere is not the correct
phrase. The right to the Presidency after due election; the
right to a U. S. judgeship after nomination by the President
and legal confirmation by the Senate; the right to draw one's
salary as an ambassador, congressman, or consul, is a constitu
tional right. These offices are created by the agreement of the
13 States that is evidenced by that -written document. But
when we speak of State-rights we are speaking of the rights of '
a Sovereign. They do not arise from nor are they dependent
on the Constitution, or any other agency, Power, Sovereign, or
Sovereignty on earth. They are in no sense derivative, except
that the State springs fuU-fledged from the united heads, -wills
and hearts of the people, who breathe into it the breath of life.
At that moment the State is a Sovereign, -with power to do any
act she or the people that represent her may decide to do, pro
vided the act shall not in&inge on the rights or interests of any
other Sovereign. When the people of Massachusetts met in
convention to ratify the Constitution, they could have resolved
and passed an order, or decree to hang John Adams, and all
the Powers on earth could not, rightfully, have prevented the
hanging. Yea, more, when Daniel Webster deUvered that
grand speech on the Constitution and the Union in the Senate,
March 7th, 1850, the people of Massachusetts, instead of mob
bing him and tearing him to pieces, could, after adjournment
of Congress, have elected delegates to a State convention, and
those delegates, after organization, could by ordinance have
repealed the the State Constitution, and then by vote could
have ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Daniel Webster
and to hang him from Faneuil Hall, and no power on earth

200 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
could have lawfuUy interfered to prevent the hanging. Those
who for a century have believed the govemment of the
United States to be omnipotent, or, at least, the Sovereign
Ruler of each and all the States, wUl say that it, the supreme
power, could send the army into Massachusetts to save the
victim, or could, through the judicial department, by habeas
corpus, command the sergeant-at-arms to bring the body of
Daniel Webster at once before the Court, and then by judgment
declaring his arrest and detention Ulegal, discharge him from
further custody.
Had Virginia, in solemn convention, ordered that George
Washington should be hanged, or burnt aUve, no other Power
could lawfully have prevented the execution of that order.
The civilized nations of Europe for centuries have been hor
rified by the massacre of Christians by that embodiment of
tyranny, the brutal Sultan, and have strained against that
irrefragable chain — ^the law of Nations that bound them — ^to
get their hands around his throat, but they could npt reach
hiin. He was hedged about by the divinity that protects every
sovereign, and his own sweet wiU could not be thwarted so
long as he acted within his own acknowledged borders.
It is an easy pr'oblem — ^if problem at aU — ^to apply the fore
going undeniable law of nations to the State of South Caroliaa
in 1830 and to the Southern States in 1861, They aU were
sovereigns in 1787 when they agreed to the Constitution, This
opinion, as I understand the relation between the States and
the federal government, and the sovereign powers of each
State, is not based on the law of the Constitution, but on the
law of nations. The federal judiciary has no original jurisdic
tion over the criminal procedure of a State, or of crime not
committed on soil within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
United States, as in forts, arsenals, Ughthouses, mints, custom
houses and the Uke, In the Constitution as adopted by the lune
States there is no power delegated by the States that enables
any depai^ment of the federal govemment to arrest the supposed;;
action of Massachusetts. The powers conferred on the Judi
ciary Article HI, Sec. 2, are exclusively civU. If Mr. Webster
were arrested, except for treason, felony or breach of the
peace, during a session of Congress, or going to or returning

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 201
from Congress, the writ of habeas corpus from a federal court
would run. Hence, I said above, "after adjournment of
Congress," * Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution only two,
' the fifth and sixth, speak of criminal cases or trials. The only
reference to criminal law or procedure in the original Constitu
tion relates to trial by impeachment which is strictly a Federal
provision and is not a proceeding by judges and juries, or by
judges ordy. The House prosecutes and the Senate sits as a
court, presided over by the Chief Justice,
At first blush, tbe fifth and sixth amendments seem to lay
some inhibition on Massachusetts in the case supposed, and I
proceed now to consider them. We must not forget that the
question involves primarily tbe Law of Nations, and that that
law grows out of and is based exclusively on sovereignty. We
must look at the State of Massachusetts as she stood before and
at the time she voted to enter tbe Union. She was clothed,
humanly speaking and in relation to other powers, vrith omnipo
tence as to limitations within her own territorial jurisdiction.
I speak of omnipotence not as unlimited as to ability for execu
tion, but as unrestrained vritbin her borders by any possible
human control. She was as untrainmeled as tbe Thirty Tyrants,
or Turkey, or any one of the twelve Caesars, For what she did
Ul civU or criminal procedure at home she was responsible to
no one, to no Power on earth. Her only responsibility for any
act was to the Ruler of tbe Universe.
Vattel in the Preliminaries to his treatise, page 59 says:
"Nations being free and independent, though the conduct of one
of themi be iUegal and condemnable by tbe laws of conscience,
the others are bound to acquiesce in it when it does not infringe
upon their perfect rights. The liberty of that nation would not
remain entire if the others were to arrogate to themselves the
right of inspecting and regulating her actions; an assumption
on their part tbat wotdd be contrary to the law of Nations,
which declares every nation free and independent of all the
others,"

CHAPTER XXVn.
THE RIGHT WAY TO DETERMINE THE
QUESTION.
The ruling vice of Mr. Webster's arguments with Hayne
and Calhoun was his dishonesty of both head and heart, I
have shown where his heart was. It was -with New England,
ibis mother; with his brothers and sisters for whom the Tariff
for Protection was distilling fatness, and its offspring, power;
and it was vrith and bound to the "Committee of Forty" who
had bought him, I leave that view as presented, because it does
not reach the question of the "good or evil to the Constitution
of the country he might do" by his speech, January 26th, 1830,
A man may be dishonest and, yet, reason Uke an angel. He
may be honest and reason like a fool. Mr. Webster was a
master of logic, and his fault in this debate was in the position
he chose. There is a tiresome quantity of verbiage in both
speeches, to one who is searching for the thread of arguments
on which it is strung. This is one of the arts of a sophist or a
demagogue. He seeks to "darken counsel by words without
wisdom," As I understand this question it is not necessary to
do more than to state what it was and still is, and then to dissect
Mr, Webster's treatment. The questions were (1) : Does the
Constitution prohibit a State, or ten or forty States to nuUify
an Act of Congress by preventing its operation within its or
their border? (2) : Does the Constitution prohibit a State, or
ten or forty States, to secede from the Union with or without
cause to be decided by its, or their, citizens?
The Constitution being silent, the question' had to be deter
mined as other legal documents, as the meaning of contracts
and statutes, for example, must be found. The Constitution
was a legal document. The Senate was sitting as a Court to
ascertain its meaning on a vital question on whieh not a sen
tence, or word, in its entire compass shed a ray of light. It wiU
be of great assistance to know how a Court of learned Judges,
of a State Supreme Court or of the United States Supreme

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 203
Court, would have proceeded in an endeavor — ^honest, of course,
— ^to decide either question that the Senate had under consider
ation. The first act of the Court would be to read the Constitu
tion to find out what it had to say. If they found it silent, they
would resort to its preamble for some intimation that migbi;
assist them. If they should find none, they would again read
the body of the Conslitution to see if they could possibly find
if any part might by intendment or dubious meaning throw any
light on the intention of the makers. If they should find every
article, section, sentence and word clear, distinct, unequivocal,
with but one possible meaning, they would next and as a last
resort, look at the parties to the contract and all their surround
ings and circumstances to ascertain what they intended to do
before they signed the paper. This would be on the hypothesis
that aU the signers were of age, were of sound mind, and acting
from free -wiU. If the Court knew that the parties to the con
tract were free and independent sovereigns, they would adopt
another line of thought. They would lay aside municipal law
and take up the laws that govern Nations, States, and all other
Sovereigns. And it is just at this point in his investigation that
Daniel Webster, the Judge, balked, halted and turned away.
He saw that if he entered upon that ground he would be in the
enemy's line, where his weapon would not be as effective as a
wooden lath, and that he would have to surrender.
Before taking up the line of argument tbe Court would have
followed when scaiming tbe text of the Constitution, and the
Law of Nations by which the Court would have decided the
question, I will submit a few remarks on the two main grounds
on which Mr. Webster relied. The first was, that "We, the peo
ple of the United States, framed and adopted the Constitution,"
When he took that position he knew that be was doing what
no court would listen to. He was overriding a cardinal rule
for construing statutes and all legal documents tbat begin with
a preamble, or other introductory writing. The rule is that a
preamble can not be used to construe a statute or writing un
less there is ambiguity in the body of the paper. There is no
ambiguity in that instrument. It is as clear, plain and explicit
as the Decalogue, or the Sermon on the Mount, excepting always
that India rubber phrase, "the general welfare," which reminds

204 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
a lawyer of the donee who was promised as much land as' an
ox hide could cover^ and who cut the bide around from border
to center in an unbroken string and claimed ' ' acres of land. ' ' His
resort to tbe preamble was to dodge "the States" that the Con
stitution bristled vrith. He was trying to keep out of the way
where stood confronting him "The Laws of Nations." If the
people en masse, made tbe Constitution, the Law of Nations
would not apply, because that would bave been the act of one
nation. If each State as a sovereign acted separately, he
would be forced to accept the gage of battle thrown at him by
Calhoun, and fight it out on tbe ground of sovereignty. The
question was, is there any part of the Constitution between the
States that impairs the right of a sovereign to withdraw. He
endeavored to shift the issue by contending tbat the States did
not make the compact, but that all the people within the States,
acting as one body, made it. For this reason be had to build
his argument on the preamble. Further on I shaU take up the
question thus made by Mr. Webster. I -will now consider his
contention that "the people settled the question for all time."
Tn strictness of polemics, a construction of tbe Constitution
was not tbe question before the Senate, or rather was not in
volved in the discussion. Tbe real issue turned solely on the
Law of Nations. The Constitution was as silent as the grave
on nullification and secession, and the discussion was along the
line of prohibition, or non-prohibition of both. The issue was
then and is now; —
When several sovereigns make a compact, contract, con
vention, or agreement (call it as you please) to do certain acts
through an agent, and no time for its duration is fixed, can one
or more of the sovereigns vrithdraw or secede at wUl?
This, as I conceive, is the whole question. It must be borne
in mind that matters of justice and eqiuty between the parties
are not involved in the question. The Laws of Nations pro-ride
for that contingency. It is one of power and privilege that are
inherent to sovereignty, and immutable and indestmctible. For
when one power is lost or destroyed, sovereignty is destroyed.
Sovereignty is a unit, a perfect, globe, and can not be
diminished. Diminution is destruction.

CHAPTER xxvm.
SOVEREIGNTY AND THE LAW OF
NATIONS.
Did the thirteen States, each a sovereign, intend to destroy
their sovereignty when they agreed to unite and exercise jointly
through a common agent a few of their sovereign powers ? And
whether they so intended or not, did they, in reality, destroy
their sovereignty when they adopted the Constitution? Just
this is the place and time to quote a few pertinent paragraphs
and sentences from "The Law of Nations." I select Vattel, a
¦writer weU accredited. It wiU aid in forming the right conclu
sions, to submit a few reflections between the various sections
and paragraphs of Vattel 's book. Besides it is better to con
sider the nature of our federal government, as it seems to be in
the North the generaUssimo of the Union — in other words, a
nation over aU the States. This view or beUef pervades that
section. "A nation or State," says Vattel, "is a society composed o±
men who have uiuted, forming one body politic, for mutual
safety and advantage. It is based on the laws, rights, powers
and privileges that every man has in a state of nature. One
of the laws of nature is perfect freedom and independence to
do as he may •wUl, but with the restriction to accord to all other
men the same rights, powers and privUeges, and not to interfere
with them."
Again, Page 3, Chapter 1st. "Several sovereigns and inde
pendent States may unite themselves by a perpetual confeder
acy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect State.
They wiU together constitute a republic; their joint
deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member,
though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on tbe
exercise of it (sovereignty), in virtue of voluntary engage
ments. A person does not cease to be free and independent,
when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has volun
tarily contracted."

206 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Let it be borne in mind that each of the States, acting sep
arately, was governed, externally, by no law but the law of
Nations ; that wben they united they were still sovereigns and
that as such they were still governed by the laws of Nations,
except so far as by agreement (the Constitution) they had
voluntarily restrained themselves from the exercise of a few
powers of a sovereign, and had delegated that right to a com
mon agent to be uspd by it "for their mutual safety and
advantage." By the law of Nations just quoted, we know that
the States after the union remained sovereign. Without refer
ring to the Constitution we know that they, being sovereign,
were still vested ¦with all rights, powers, privileges, et cetera,
that constitute sovereignty. But it is contended that when
the States delegated to Congress certain powers they divested
themselves of those powers, and that Congress received them as
an unconditional grant in perpetuity. To that contention there
are several answers — each one complete.
First : Sovereignty can only be held by human beings acting
together as a community. It can not exist in a thing, in a paper
document, or in machinery called a government. If the States,
each acting alone, attempted to grant their sovereign power to
declare war, levy taxes, or any other power, there was no man,
or State, or nation, free and independent, that could take title
to the thing they intended to grant. The Constitution, a paper,
; could not take the grant. The government, which is nothing
more than the vrill of sovereignty in action, could not take it.
The men who were to operate the govemment could not take
it, because they were not known — ^they were in fieri. A grant
must vest in some human being, instanter, and a grant of a sov
ereign power must vest in a sovereign, as only a sovereign can
hold and exercise sovereign powers. It may be said that, before ,
the reign of the virgin Queen, Kings of England often granted ^
monopoUes to favorites and that they thus granted a sovereign
right to subjects. The Kings did not give away a sovereign
right. Vattel says they could not do it, as the Law of Nations
forbids it. They gave the privilege to exercise a right inherent
to the crown, but a privUege defeasible at vriU or on the death
of the King.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 207
Second: Vattel, Page 30, states another law of Nations or
States to be this: "Every true sovereignty is, in its own
nature, unalienable," Every State before the Union was a true
sovereignty. The existence of a true sovereignty stripped of
any powers that, by the Law of Nations, belong to a sovereign,
is a paradox. It is to say ten are ten after five are deducted.
Third : As hitherto said, the people in the States—the citi
zens of each State, were the only people in the States before
and after they united. There were no people of the United
States, And as already shown in a prior chapter, there were
no human beings (who are necessary to sovereignty) to take
even one attribute of sovereignty. Hence, the thirteen separate
peoples, when they acted in union in adopting the Constitution,
could not, even K they so intended, grant, or divest themselves
of any of their sovereign powers. If they made the attempt,
they were trying to destroy their own sovereignty ; they were
trying to give away sovereign powers to a nonexistent thing ;
they were giving away, as a man would give who takes a dollar
from his right-hand pocket and puts it in tbe left-band pocket,
A man, in a state of nature, possessed of all sovereign powers,
can not donate them, or any one of them, to himself. So, the
sovereign thirteen States could not grant to themselves that of
which they, by the law of Nations, following the law of nature,
were already possessed.
Fourth : We have so far discussed the question only in the
Ught of the Law of Nations. Vattel says that Law is immutable.
A thing immutable is unchangeable and indestructible. We
vrill now endeavor to ascertain whether the Federal Constitu
tion — the only base the federal govemment stands on, the only
bond between tbe sovereign States, contains any Article, Sec
tion, Paragraph, Line or Word that is an attempt to change
"the immutable law of Nations." In other words, does it
witness that each sovereign State attempted to cut itself in
twain— to give away about half of its sovereign powers, rights,
privileges, etc., and to leave itseK a political and national torso,
¦without tbe power to make war to preserve its existence, or if
fight it must, to fight like heroic Widrington, "on his stumps"
after he lost his legs. This power to declare war is selected,
first, because it is the most important sovereign power for self-

208 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
preservation, and, second, because it is the power that Lincoln
assumed to be a constitutional right, and used it to destroy the
Southern Confederacy. If we can find this sovereign power
was not granted by the States to the federal govemment we
arrive at two inevitable conclusions, each more terrible than the
monsters Sin and Death, that Satan met guarding the gate of
Hell. The first is that Abraham Lincoln ¦violated the Constitu
tion and his oath when, as Commander-in-Chief, he at the head
of seventy-five thousand armed men, invaded the borders of a
sovereign State — ^Virginia; and, second, that not the federal
government, but the twenty-four sovereign States of the North
combined — ^not by right given by the Law of Nations, not by
right given by the Constitution, but by right of the "Higher
Law" by which every outlaw commits arson, murder and rape
— and, with millions of citizens ordered out by the States, in
vaded the borders of eleven Southern sovereign States, and by
vastly superior numbers and metal, in violation of the Law of
Nations, forced them back into the Union.
What will be said of the power "to declare" (which includes
the power to make and to prosecute) "War," applies vrith equal
force to every other power given to each of the three Depart
ments named in the Constitution. Under the head "State
Rights" an analysis of the Constitution was made. Therefore,
I shall but briefly review here what the States said of the power
to declare war.
They said "the Congress shaU bave power to declare war"
and that the President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the
army and na^vy." But they said the Congress shall not give him
money to carry on war for a period longer than two years. Is
there any sovereignty given to a man who, when at war, must
stop dead still, like grandfather's clock, unless the Congress
shall vote; for his use more money? And this severely over
Northern (but not Southern) sovereign States, must account for
every dollar thus voted to him, not as a sovereign, but only as
commander, of tbe army and navy. Is that sovereignty? But
he is not permitted to handle a dollar of tbe money voted for
war. The money goes into the treasury. He can't touch it.
His subordinate, the Secretary of the Treasury, keeps it and pays
it out under fixed rules. Wben tbe war is over this Northern

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 209
sovereign can not make a treaty with the enemy — ^nor, indeed,
a treaty with any sovereign at peace witb the States acting
together under their agreement, or contract, or compact caUed
the Constitution. Tbe people of tbe several States have sent
some servants tb Washington — called by the Constitution Sena
tors — ^to make treaties for them. And the sovereign States have
told those Senators that their masters will not be bound by any
treaty unless two-thirds of them approve it. Is that the language
of servants to their sovereign ? The President, the States ' head
servant, but the people's sovereign up North, is authorized to
act as clerk and write down the proposed terms for a treaty,
and he must then band the paper to their other servants, two-
thirds of whom are authorized to say "Yes" and if a majority,
or one less than two-thirds say "No," the head servant's paper
goes to the waste basket or pigeon hole as a curio for future
reference. The President, the States' head servant, can not appoint one
ambassador, one judge, one consul, and many other officers with
out saying to the States' Senators — "by your leave. Sirs !" And,
should he be reasonably suspected of treason, bribery, or other
high crimes, and even of misdemeanors, tbe States, acting
through their servants in the House of Representatives, can
accuse and arraign him, and those other servants — ^the States'
senators — can try and punish. him. At the North this head
servant is a sovereign, or, at least, is vested by tbe States' with
sovereign powers.
But the North says Congress can declare war, and as the
war power is one of the attributes of sovereignty, therefore this
power makes Congress, pro tanto, a sovereign body. Well it
seems that just here, I have struck a snag, because I am com
pelled to admit that Vattel's definition of a nation, State, or
sovereign, in its letter, fits Congress "joust like de paper on
de vail." He says "Nations, or States, are bodies politic,
societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting
their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of thdr
combined strength." That definition seems to cover — "You
tickle me and I'U tickle you"— "You scratch my back, and I'U
scratch your back" — "You vote for my bill to help re-elect me,
and I'U do the same for you." "Let's aU by the joint efforts
of our combined strength hoist our salary from $5,000.00 up to

210 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
$7,500.00 and vote $1,500.00 apiece for clerks."— "Help me roll
my log, and I'll help you roll your log." — "You help me to
get money to clean out 'Suffrage' branch and I'll vote for your
rotten pension biUs." Sic Transit pecuniae populi! While this
fits Congress as a whole, it does not fit all Congressmen. There
are some clean men in that body.
The Congress can declare war and vote money to carry it on.
Monarchs collect the money, go to war and keep at it so long
as they will. That is sovereign power. But Congress can not
do that. The States make the Congress. They elect both
branches. EVery two years they dismiss all members of one
branch and one third of tbe other. If the States disapprove of
a war they can notify those servants to stop it. If they do not
obey, the States, on a given day, can caU them up and cut off
their official heads and send others at once to a called session of
Congress, ordered to stop the war, and they will stop it. This
is the law promulgated by thirteen sovereigns in their compact
made in 1787, and was tbe law under which they agreed to live
together ; was the law when in 1861, twenty-two sovereign
Northern States made war on eleven sovereign Southern States,
and it is the law today. Where is any sovereignty, imder that
law, to be found in the President, or in Congress, or in the
federal judiciary?
Again, waiving for the moment tbe fact that the federal
govemment was not a pre-existing nation, or State, capable of
course of recei-ving and holding a grant by another sovereign of
any of his or its powers, and assuming as true that the thirteen
States granted, or tried to grant, some of their sovereign powers
and rights to the federal government, then, the imporant ques
tion is, in whom did those granted powers vest ? Take the power
to declare war. Is it vested in Congress? If so, vrith this and
more than forty other powers (Art. 7, Section VIII), Congress
has more attributes of sovereignty than aU the States have. A
sovereign power is fixed, permanent. Vattel says it is inalien
able even by a monarch vrithout the consent of his subjects. On
the 4th of March every second year Congress expires. It is
politically dead. True, successors bave been elected by the
States the year before, but they are not Congressmen in presenti.
They are not qualified to declare war, nor to exercise any other
"of the many powers of Congress. They are only heirs expectant

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 311
—members elect. Their only power is to draw their salary
monthly, a privUege not granted by the Constitution, but by
themselves. There is no Congress for nine months. In order
to be a Congress they must assemble and be sworn. This point
I have raised in another chapter, but it is very pertinent here.
As "sovereignty is immutable " so must be that which is an attri
bute of sovereignty, as, for instance, the power to wage war.
If lost by grant to another sovereign, it can not be taken back.
It is lost to the grantor forever. Therefore, if Congress by
sovereign grant took the power to wage war, tbe States lost it.
When Congress dies by law what becomes of all its alleged sov
ereign powers? Where are they during the nine months of
interval? Did they issue from tbe dead sovereigns, and, like
fairy elves, keep midnight revels through dismal corridors,
awaiting the next crop of States' senrants to glide into their
trousers, or perch on their pates, and thus make them sovereign ?
If not, where did they rest, or dwell? Sovereign powers do
not Ue around loose. They have a local habitation, and are
immortal. But the thirteen States did more to show th© world tbat they
understood the Law of Nations, and their determination to hold
every power, right and privilege of a nation. They, as a last
word, declared that they were appointing an agent and nothing
more to act for them for "the purpose of promoting their mutual
safety and advantage." ,They considered the agreement that
bound them together as only tentative. This view was held by
Alexander Hamilton even after the Union was formed. It might
not be the blessing they sought. It might be advisable to add
to, or to take from it. The Union was an untried experiment
without precedent. Looking ahead, therefore, as their last decla
ration they announced — "When we wish to make a change, three-
fourths of us wUl meet and make sucb changes by taking from,
or adding to, as we desire." Under tbat reserved power three-
fourths of the States can take from Congress the power to
declare war, and to levy taxes, and to compel ninety men to
support one man in idleness, who spends the money they must
hand over to him, in royal feasts for monkeys and dogs, in
foreign lands, and importing anarchists, memlbers of the Mafia
and Black Hand, to break every strike, to buy legislators and con-

212 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
gressmen — more degraded than negro slaves; to keep up the
despotism vrith face of friend and heart of fiend and caressing
vrith the lips while' robbing vrith the hands — ^that masquerades
under the name of Protection.
We have seen from the foregoing what is the relation, the
status in law, of the States to the govemment they created. We
must now consider what is their relation to each other under
their written bond of union. Vattel says: "It is essential to
every civil society, that each member bave resigned a part of
his right to the body of the society, and that there exist in it an
authority capable of commanding all tbe members, of giving
them laws, and of compelling those who should refuse to obey.
Nothing of this kind can be conceived or supposed to subsist
between nations. .Each sovereign State claims, and actually
possesses, an absolute independence of all tbe others. They are
all, according to Monsieur Wolf himself, "to be considered as
so many individuals who live together in a state of nature, and
who acknowledge no other laws but those of nature, or her
Great Author." I suspend the discussion, for a moment, to
submit a pertinent reflection.
The absolute independence of a State — its possession of im
mutable powers and rights, as complete as one man would have
were he the only human being on the earth — can not possibly
be too strongly stressed. This will not be denied even by frivol
ous readers who know the dangerous and deadly ¦views — Pleading
to monarchy and despotism — ^that are entertained vrith comfort
and delight by people in the Northern States, especiaUy in New
England, To prove this assertion it is only necessary to quote
a statement by John Fiske, philosopher, scholar, professor of
history, and able vsriter. He was bom at Hartford, 1842, edu
cated at Harvard University ; graduated 1863, at 21 years ; was
professor of history at Harvard — delivered lectures on American
history in Boston — repeated them in London and Edinburgh —
wrote fourteen books and many essays, and died much too late,
m 1901. I give this extended sketch to show his bulk in New England
as teacher, historian and scholar. He received his education
whUe the twenty-two sovereign 'Northern States, and not the
federal govemment, as he was taught, were shooting to death

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 213
the Southern Confederacy, composed of eleven sovereign States.
We must, therefore, believe he wrote, and taught as American
history and as the Law of Nations, what be was taught at Har
vard and what he absorbed as he rubbed against statesmen of
New England, of whom Henry Cabot Lodge is a select sample.
Mr. Fiske says: "The State, while it does not possess such
attributes of sovereignty as were, by our federal constitution,
granted to the United States, does, nevertheless, possess many
very important and essential characteristics of a sovereign
body." Here we are comforted by the assurance of a New England
philosopher and scholar that, although each American State —
like a yoimg buck, who, just of age, rich and strong, and sowing
wUd oats, squanders nearly all of his fortune — ^was such a fool
as to give away the most valuable of its powers, it still had
enough left, like the old woman vrith her whiskey, "to worry
along vrith."
This teaching is more direful than an act of treason. The
hanging of a traitor produces a quieting effect on the public
pulse, and queUs seditious tendency in others. But here is a
seditionary bearing tbe seal and imprimatur of Harvard Univer
sity, journeying, vrithout stop, through the Union; accredited
bj high repute as a fit personage for entree to cultured circles
and, when received, he sows in tbe mind of age and youth ^eed
that vriU bear the fruits of usurpation, then plutocratic rule,
foUowed by despotism. He is like the Puritan emissaries who,
sent with Bibles for sale, gained through them hospitable recep
tion from the masters, and then, imder cover of night, sought
the slaves and poured into tbe porches of their ears the bebenon
of sedition, insurrection and assassination. No youth from the
South or West should be sent to Harvard, or Yale, or any New
England school wbere such destructive political heresy is taught.
No Southem library sboiUd give space to this sapper and miner
of sovereignty of the States. Southem youth can do far better in
Southem colleges and universities wbere the head, like Fiske 's
federal government, is supreme, than at Harvard or Yale, where
the feet, arms and legs are in the lead, and the head plays
second fiddle, or kettle drum ,and the graduate returns with
more Yale locks in his trousers than of "Locke's Understand
ing" in his head.

CHAPTER XXIX.
THE HUMAN LAW OF HIGHEST
AUTHORITY.
There has long prevailed a gross misconception of what the
makers of tbat compact meant by saying "the Constitution, and
laws made in pursuance thereof, and treaties, shaU be the
^preme law of the land." They are of higher control than
even the Constitutions of the States, and, for tbat reason only,
the impression has been general that every citizen of every
State owes allegiance to the Constitution, the laws made by
Congress, and treaties. This misapprehension arises from con
founding allegiance to a sovereign with obedience to law. The
two are as different as cause differs from effect. The citizen,
or subject, must obey the laws. But there are gradations of law
in this country. They rise like stair-steps. There is the law
of custom, the canon law, the civil law, the common law, the
statute law, organic or constitutional law, the law of treaties
and the law of Nations, In order to insure domestic tranquil
ity, that is, harmony between the States, our vrise forbears
declared that those three classes of laws should have higher
authority than any State laws. This was the sole purpose of
that second paragraph in Article VI. Without it, there would
have been "confusion worse confounded" among the States,
It is simply the arbiter appointed, or umpire, between the States.
But, even they are not the highest law. They are but con
ventional law, law by agreement of the States — ^the parties to
the convention. They affect no one else — ^no other Power, or
people. They are entirely domestic — a family arrangement.
But, above that law, and above and controlling the States is the
law of highest authority known to the human race. It is the Law
of Nations, A new born nation does not have to agree to it. There
is no initiation — ^no baptism. As soon as it breathes, this law
becomes its vestment for life. This law is like the circumam
bient air. No nation can escape from it — ^no nation can Uve
without it. It has been estabUshed by the greatest and ¦wisest
men of all the earth since Justice, Mercy, Honor and Truth have
been recognized among civilized men as the true, the right and

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 215
the only safe rule of actidii among nations. It has its organic
law, and imder that it has a code of laws. Its organic law is
to estabUsh justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common
defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the
blessings of -liberty to all citizens and subjects. One of its
fundamental laws is protection of the citizens or subjects by
the sovereign power, and, in retum, allegiance from the citizens
and subjects to the protecting sovereign Power, A mutual duty
is thus established that neither the Sovereign, nor the citizens,
or subjects, can violate. They may wander Uke nomads to the
ends of the earth, and that chain, always lengthening as they
wander, is never broken. From the desert sands, from the wUds
of the jungle, from the isles of aU the seas, the subject of a
sovereign may call on him for protection, and not call in vain.
And the sovereign, if in danger from foreign foes, can demand
Ms retum, and he must obey.
Because officers of the army and the navy are educated for
and in the art of war at West Point and Annapolis, without
cost to themselves, they are impressed with the idea that they
and their services belong to the federal government at all times
and under aU conditions. Some of them seem to think that the
federal govemment owns the money that is spent for their
education. They seem not to know that the people of tbe States
supply all the money to conduct these miUtary schools; that
they are educated by the States for their protection; that the
federal govemment is nothing but the financial agent of the
States, and, in its own right, owns nothing. Hence, some of
those officers conceived that their allegiance was due to the
federal government. They seemed to believe that the govern
ment was and is a sovereign nation. They seem not to under
stand that sovereignty is in each State, and that the Constitution
is but an agreement by thirteen sovereigns to erect a govern
ment to represent them in their relations to other sovereigns,
and to conduct their inter-State relations. Hence, when the
division of the States occurred in 1861, some of the officers in
the arhiy and navy believed their allegiance was due to the
federal government as a Nation over and controlling all the
States, A greater, more grievous and ruinous error was never
made.

ai6 TRUE VINDICATION QF THE SOUTH .
Historians, pubUcists and statesmen •w'iU look for higher
authority on this question of Sovereignty and AUegiance than
the opinion of the Sewards with their "Higher Law", the
Garrisons with their damnation of the Constitution, and of
Lincoln and the fanatics who elected and followed him in his
insane invasion of the South, his suspension of the writ of
babea's corpus and proclamation of martial law throughout the
Northern States, his arrest and imprisonment of Northern
editors, legislators, diplomats, a U. S, Senator, and forty thou
sand other peaceable citizens, his suppression by the miUtary
of freedom of speech and of the press, and his control of the
ballot-box in eight or more Northern States to secure his second
term as President,
The Nationalists ignore the Laws of Nations, but the Laws
of Nations vrill not be ignored. The Nationalists sprang from
a race of fanatics — the Puritans — ^whose code from 1637, when
they in convention at Salem, Massachusetts, established their
Procrustean religion, to this hour, was and is to override every
obstacle that might conflict with their two controUing passions —
Religious Fanaticism and Avarice, Hence, in their view of State
Rights, Sovereignty and Allegiance, there is nothing vrithin
their horizon but the Constitution, and in that they can see
nothing but petty communities called States, all under the
sovereign dominion of a great consolidated Nation caUed "The
United States", With triumphant tone they read :
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof ; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made under the authority of the United States^
shall be the supreme law of the land," No one since the Con
stitution was agreed to has ever questioned the validity and
the wisdom of that clause, and tbe supremacy of the three
classes of laws therein named — ^the Constitution, the laws pf
Congress that do not violate it, and treaties with foreign nations.
The thirteen States agreed to that clause, and it would be idiotic
in them and in any State since admitted into the Union to say
it is not law superior to all State laws. But that clause has no
possible bearing on State Rights, State Sovereignty and AUe
giance. That clause is indispensable. Two of the six purposes
named in the preamble, that induced the Staines to form a Union,

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 217
to-wit; "to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility",
could not possibly have been effected without an agreement that,
in cases of conflict between statutes of thirteen States and judi
cial decisions of their courts, there should be a controlling
authority. Hence, they agreed that the Constitution, and the
laws of their Congress, and treaties their common agent might
make for them with foreign nations, should be tbe supreme law.
"The laws of the United States" mentioned in that clause are
nothing more than Acts of Congress, The word "laws" has a
distinct, technical meaning. In a republic it means enactments
by a legislative body. A Constitution or a treaty, while being
law, is not classed among "laws," The first Article and first
Section of the Constitution demonstrates that "the United
States," in that clause establishing tbe supreme law, is synony
mous -with Congress, It reads: "All legislative powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
which shaU consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. ' '
The President can not make a law. The federal courts can not
legislate, that is — ^lawfully. And the United States, which are
the States United, can not legislate, nor give judicial judgments,
nor execute tbe laws. But the Nationalists assume tbat tbe
States are entirely subordinate to the federal government,
because they agreed that "the Constitution and the lawful
statutes of the United States (that is, of Congress) and treaties
shaU be the supreme law of tbe land." There never was a more
glaring non sequitur. The agreement to make one civil law of
more authority than another has no bearing on the question of
sovereignty and allegiance. Men do not owe allegiance to the
law they make. The people who make tbe law are above it —
can unmake it at pleasure. But tbe people — a State, for instance
—who make it, in their social aggregation, are the sovereign,
and to that aggregated body each citizen owes allegiance. It
is simply nonsense to speak of allegiance to a law.
There is another hypothesis which is a test of the sincerity
of the Nationalists and of their AUegiance. The Puritans, dur
ing fifty years before the Southern States seceded, made
¦frequent threats to secede, that their supersensitive consciences
aught be rid of the sin their sainted PUgrim Fathers saddled on
the South— that "twin sister of barbarism"— slavery. Even as

218 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
late as two years before they started out on their Holy Crusade
to kUl the Southern barbarians, and to give the down-trodden,
manacled, fettered and starved negroes freedom and social
equality with themselves, a convention of these religious fanat
ics was held in Worcester, Massachusetts. They adopted ten
Resolutions, which are printed in the appendix hereto. Two
of their Resolutions will suffice at this point :
"Resolved, That this movement does not seek merely dis
union, but the more perfect union of the free States by the
expulsion of the slave States from the confederation in which
they have ever been an element of discord, danger and disgrace.
"Resolved, That the sooner the separation takes place, the
more peaceful it will be ; but that peace or war is a secondary
consideration in view of our present perils. Slavery must be
conquered, peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must."
One Resolution reads that the "meeting was attended by
men of various parties and affinities."
The hypothesis is this : Suppose that these repeated ^hreats
to secede had been carried into effect, and the twenty-two free
States had seceded and formed another confederation, leaving
the Southem States in and as the Union, to which would the
citizens of Massachusetts, for instance, have owed their
aUegiance ? What would Wendell PhilUps, Garrison, Emerson,
J. Russell Lowell, Charles Sumner, Henry Wilson, (Vice-Presi
dent under Grant) and that troop of parlor warriors and
shouters of "Rebels, Rebellion, Traitors and Treason," have
done? Would they have clung to the Union, or stood by the
new "confederation?" Would they have taken up arms to
drive Massachusetts back into the Union? Suppose those
seceded States had chosen their "Higher Law" genius, WiUiam
H. Seward of New York, to be President, would those immacu
late patriots have sung "Hang BiU Seward on a sour-apple
tree?" Would any one of these foul-mouthed denouncers of
every Southem man as a rebel and traitor, have left Massa
chusetts to fight for the old Union? If the President and
Congress of the old Union had sent ships and blockaded the
entire coast of New England, would they have saluted the old
flag of the United States as their own? Would each, ¦with the
mock fldelity of Lincoln in his first Inaugural, have exclaimed

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 219
"I have sworn to support the Constitution and the laws, and
my allegiance is to it. I owe no allegiance to Massachusetts?"
Any one who might have put these questions to these
maUgnant haters of tbe South and her people would have
received such answer that he would have thought he was ' ' struck
with Heaven's afflicting thunder and besought the deep of Hell
to shelter him," Tf secession by the slave States made their
citizens rebels and traitors, secession by the free States would
have made their citizens rebels and traitors. The cry of
"Rebel," "RurbeUyion," "Tur-raitor," "Tur-reason," was the
most despicable and infamous attempt to stigmatize and to fix
odimn on a patriotic, honorable and innocent people. It was
an unveUed, a naked shame ; it was organized hypocrisy ; it was
impotent maUgnaney ; it was cunning knavery ; it was malicious
conspiracy; and, far worse than these, it was the devilish device
of avaricious fathers to decoy hundreds of thousands of inno
cent and ignorant boys into the fiery furnace of battle under
the delusion that fhey were fighting rebels to save the Union,
instead of dying to gratKy the ambition of an insane infidel to
be known in history as the ' ' Great Emancipator. ' '
A summing up ¦will now be made of the foregoing discussion
of the law of Sovereignty, Allegiance and Citizenship, The
reader is requested again to remember that the law that deter
mines these questions is to be found between the year 1783,
when Great Britain acknowledged the sovereignty, freedom and
independence of the thirteen States, each by its name, and the
year 1804 when the twelfth amendment to the Constitu
tion was made; because the law as it was between those two
dates underwent no change before the Southem States seceded.
The three negro amendments made after the war of 1861-5 have
no possible bearing on the questions herein considered. The
grovri;h of this country, the increase of States from thirteen to
forty-eight, the acquisition of territory, from that of Louisiana
to Alaska and Panama, the multiplication of vast industries,
the interlacing and entanglement of private interests crossing
State lines, and the palpable encroachments and usurpations by
the three departments of the federal govemment, do not affect,
in the least, the law in force— to-^wit, the Law of Nations and
the Constitution in 1804 and 1861. With this precaution a
resume will now be given.

220 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
FIRST: Each State was sovereign, free and independent
in 1783, SECOND: Each State in 1787, acting separately, sent
delegates to Philadelphia to endeavor to frame an instrument
in -vri-iting that would be the basis for a union.
THIRD : The delegates agreed on what was and is caUed
The Constitution.
FOURTH: Each State, by a convention that represented
the sovereignty of the State, discussed the entire instrument,
and agreed or disagreed to it.
FIFTH : Before the States entered the Union there were no
people within the territory of the thirteen States but the citi
zens of each Sate, and the citizens of each State owed allegiance
to it and to it only.
SIXTH: When nine States agreed to the Constitution it
became a compact between them.
SEVENTH: Four States were not bound, and remained,
each, sovereign, free and independent, and were, therefore,
members of the famUy of sovereign Nations, as the nine were
before they constituted the Uiuon.
EIGHTH: The other four States, before 1790, became
members of the Union.
NINTH: The govemment organized in 1787 on and in
conformity to the Constitution was then caUed "The Federsil
Govemment." TENTH: The federal govemment is only the instrumen
tality by and through which "the United States," ,as caUed in
the Constitution, do and can act, and the words "United
States" mean nothing more than the States united, and acting
through the federal govemment.
ELEVENTH : AU powers delegated to the federal govem
ment were derived from and delegated by the thirteen States.
TWELFTH : The words—' ' the powers hereby delegated to
the United States," mean nothing more than delegation of the
right to exercise those powers untU three-fourths of the States
shaU vrithdraw their assent to their exercise by the Federal
Government, as is proven by the withdrawal from the federal
judiciary of the right to "have jurisdiction in a suit against a
State by a citizen of another State, and by citizens or subjects
of a foreign State."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 221
THIRTEENTH: The resumption of that immunity from
suit was the act of thirteen sovereigns and the exercise of
sovereign power.
FOURTEENTH: That action was the assertion of a right
that belongs to a sovereign only, that is, immunity from suit
by any one — ^whether citizen, subject, or any other sovereign.
FIFTEENTH: The compact, or Constitution, in every fea
ture of it proves tbat the States did not intend to part -with
even one of their respective sovereign powers, rights, privileges,
or immunities. They provided in that instrument for their abso
lute creation, constant renewal, and control of the federal
government —
a. by reserving the power to elect Representatives to
Congress; and by Umiting their tenure of office to
two years;
b. by reserving the power to elect Senators to Congress ;
and by limiting their tenure of office to six years ;
c. by reserving the power to elect the President of the
United States ; and limiting bis term to four years ;
d. by reserving tbe power to refuse to prosecute war
against any foreign Power;
e. hy reseirving control over the mUitia of each State;
f. by reserving power to impeach through their Repre
sentatives the President and all other civU officers
of the United States ;
g. by holding in their own hands tbe right to change
by a three-fourths' vote the compact — ^by adding
to, taking from, or abolishing it altogether ;
h. by refusing to give the President control of their
citizens as mUitia, except by authority of the Gov
ernors of the States.
SIXTEENTH : State Sovereignty is asserted in the twelfth
amendment by establishing the equality of States in choosing
a President by the House of Representatives, in the event the
States' electors fail to name one — each State having one vote;
thus acknowledging the equality of Rhode Island — ^the least —
with Virginia — ^the greatest,
SEVENTEENTH: State Sovereignty is again asserted in
Article V by giving to the smallest State an equal voice vrith the
largest State in voting to amend the Constitution,

222 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
EIGHTEENTH: Sovereignty being immutable, inaUenable
and indivisible, the States could not grant to any society, nation,
or other sovereign, any part of their powers without self-
destruction as sovereigns ; a half sovereignty being impossible.
NINETEENTH: As sovereignty is impossible vrithout a
society, or aggregation of moral beings under it, and as there
were no moral beings in the territory that included the States,
except those vrithin the boundaries of each State, it was impos
sible for the States to grant away any sovereign power.
TWENTIETH : The only human or moral beings who could
possibly claim a grant by the States of any sovereign powers
were the men who compose the tripartite federal govemment,
but they were not in existence to receive a grant; and when
elected they were citizens of the several States, to which they
owed allegiance, and could not hold any rights adverse to their
own sovereigns,
TWENTY-FIRST : A grant of sovereign power is in per
petuity and can not be recovered without assent of the sovereign
who takes it. But the powers held by the federal govemment can
be taken at the will of three-fourths of the States.
TWENTY-SECOND: The federal government is nothmg
more than a fiduciary trustee for the States. When it levies
taxes they are expended for the benefit of the States. When
Congress makes war it is to protect, or to benefit, the States.
Wben the States acquire territory the government holds it in trust
for the benefit of the States, and the States foot the bUl. When
it builds post-offices, court-houses, war-ships, forts, it controls
them for the benefit of the States.
TWENTY-THIRD : Sovereignty and Allegiance are coeval,
reciprocal and inseparable. As there can not be two co-existent
sovereignties over the same citizens, or subjects, so these same
citizens, or subjects, can not owe aUegiance to two sovereigns
at tbe same time. And as the States existed before they formed
the Union, the citizens of each State owe aUegiance to their
State. '
TWENTY-FOURTH: As there was no organized society
called a nation, except each of the thirteen States, there could
be no other allegiance by the citizens than to their respective
States.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 223

TWENTY-FIFTH: As no power can be exercised by any
branch of the federal govemment but those expressly named,
the power delegated to Congress to declare war is confined to war
with a foreign power, and, therefore, it can not declare or wage
war on a State, or States.
TWENTY-SIXTH: As "Treason against the United States
consists only in levying war against them, or in adhering to
their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," the beUigerent
action must be against aU the States imited, as defined by the
pronouns "them" and "their." Therefore, in a war between
twenty-six States arrayed against ten States, there could be no
treason committed "against the United States," or aU the
States in the Union.
TWENTY-SEVENTH: If secession did not carry the
Southem States out of the Union, then the federal govemment
had no right or power to make war on them, and the war waged
by the twenty-two States a.gainst them, ipso facto dissolved the
Union, because, by the Law of Nations war terminates all con
tracts, agreements, compacts and treaties made by the nations
at war. TWENTY-EIGHTH: Tf the Southern States, by secession,
were out of the Union, then the twenty-two States, being each a
sovereign Power, could, by the law of might, combine and wage
war against them, just as the powers of Europe combined against
France in 1814, But, as already said, the right or justice of the
war made on the Southem States is another and wholly different
question, TWENTY-NINTH: As citizenship can not be vrithout aUe-
gianCe, and as aUegiance is due to sovereignty ; and as there was
no sovereignty vrithin the boundary of the United States except
that of each State, it foUows, as the night the day, that every
citizen of any one pf the Confederate States who joined the
Northern army and fought against them, was a traitor. The
logic of this conclusion can not be evaded. Whether that man
was a private in the ranks, or wore epaulettes and stars on his
blue uniform, whether he commanded a regiment, a brigade, a
corps, or an army, or was lord of the quarter-deck, or Rear
Admiral, his status as a renegade and a traitor vrill be his por
tion as long as his name shall be remembered.

224 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
As already said in a preceding chapter, there were no traitors
in the Northern army but those men who, owing aUegiance by
citizenship to some one of the Confederate States, turned their
guns against their State that had, by the Law of Nations, the
right to their support and defense.
If allegiance to the United States were possible, it would
be impossible to the States disimited.

CHAPTER XXX.
THE AUTHOR'S POSITION TESTED
AND SUSTAINED BY HYPO
THETICAL CASES.
We vriU now apply another test of sovereignty of the States.
Suppose that between 1783 and 1788, through the Puritan's
pernicious intermeddling, a war had occurred between Massa
chusetts and New York. Could the other States have interfered?
If so, by what law or right? Could tbe Congress under the Con
federation have mustered troops and have marched against tke
belUgerents? Woiild not that have been war waged by the
Congress on a State? There was no President, like Lincoln, to
decide when and how he would make war. Senator Reverdy
Johnson, of Maryland, in the debate quoted from heretofore,
told the Republicans that their idea of the federal government
having power to make war on a State is an absurdity. Even
Lincoln denied that power and tried to save himself by insisting
he was oiUy trying to suppress an insurrection. This was under
the Constitution. A fortiori, the Congress under the Confedera
tion could not wage war against a State. Both instruments
forbid a State "to engage in war unless actuaUy invaded, or in
such imminent danger as vrill not admit of delay. ' ' Says Vattel,
"Public war is that which takes place between nations or sov
ereigns, and which is carried on in the name of the public
power, and by its order." The inhibition on a State to engage
in war was laid to prevent it from embroUing the other States
in a war. Hence, the power to make war is delegated to the
Congress only — ^that is, is delegated to the common agent or
'representative of aU the States. 'Under the Confederation, even
Congress could not declare war "unless nine States assent to the
same." Taking the strongest position that any Nationalist can ask,
to-wit: that the Confederation was in fuU force over the States
before the Constitution was adopted; the question is, could the
'Congress or any other power under the Confederation have

226 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
raised a finger to interfere between New York and Massachusetts
engaged in war? WiU any Nationalist have the eff outcry to say
that the supposed war was "an insurrection?" Insurrection is
resistance against the authority of a so^frereign,vwhether a king,
a republic, or other form of a nation. Could that war be in
resistance of the lavvs of the Conf ederatiPn ? Can not the
Nationalists see the application of the supposed war between
Massachusetts and New York? Do they not see proof of sov
ereignty of the States during the Confederation? There is no
man so blind and dangerous to society as he who can but vriU
not see.
We will suppose, again, that just before tbe war of 1861,
Kentucky, aroused to the pitch of offensive war against Ohio
because ber people were stealing Kentucky's slaves, had raised
an army and had invaded Ohio and war had ensued. Could the
federal government have interfered ? If so, under what delegated
power? The war would not have been an insurrection, or a rebel
lion. To define war between two nations as "domestic violence"
would be ridiculously absurd. The President could not have
attacked both, or either, under his authority "to enforce the
laws." They would not have ¦violated or resisted any law
passed by Congress. The President's power is given in tbe fol
lowing language: "He (the President) shall take care that the
laws be f aithf uUy executed. ' ' This is, obviously, confined to the
Acts passed by Congress and to decisions of tbe federal judi
ciary. It has no reference to tbe Constitution. Every part of
it is la^w— ¦y^, "the Constitution, and the laws of the United
States which shaU be made in pursuance thereof, and aU treaties,
are the Supreme law of the land." The Constitution is organic
law. It is only the charter that gives authority to act. It is in
no particular seK-acting or self-executing, Tbe President has
pnly two powers be can exercise ¦without some legislative aid or
direction. They are the power to convene Congress and to
adjourn it in case of disagreement. Even his power to fiU vacan
cies during a recess of the Senate is dependent on co-operation
of the Senate in making the appointments that become vacant.
The President has no army or navy, no mUitia, vrithout an Act
of Congress. He has no power "to execute the laws of the
Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions" without a

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 227
prior Act of Congress. He can not call forth tbe militia for any
one of those three purposes until Congress shall "provide for
caUing them forth. ' '
Judge Story, vrith bis zeal to belittle the States and magnify
the Nation he places over them, finds Executive powers in the
oath the President must take. His imagination is so wild and his
speech so despotic, we quote his words: "The duty imposed
upon him, to take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed,
follows out the strong injunction of his oath of office that he
wiU preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." And after
quoting the oath be moralizes (Par. 1558) : "It is a suitable
pledge of bis fidelity and responsibility to his country; and
creates upon his conscience a deep sense of duty, by an appeal at
once in the presence of God and man to the most sacred and
solemn sanctions which can operate upon the human mind."
The quotation about the oath is not given as pertinent to the
question of war between two States. But as it comes on the
question of Executiye powers, and as Story linked the oath with
one of the President's powers, it is given for the reader to
reflect on Story's moralizing on "conscience," "duty," "the
presence of God, ' ' who was et cetera, and, then, on the probable
effect of that oath on a man, an infidel from his youth to bis
death ; who went to church to mock the preacher and his. teaching ;
who scoffed at the Bible tbat be kissed when be took tbat oath;
who said Christ was a bastard ("Ulegitimate child") ; who was,
at times, insane ; whose friends concealed deadly weapons from
him to prevent suicide; who was always afflicted with the form
of insanity caUed "melancholia;" who said in his inaugural
"there can be no conflict vrithout you yourselves being tbe
aggressor;" who refused to convene Congress, and, in April, in
violation of the Constitution and bis oath, invaded Virginia with
75,000 armed men!
We return to tbe supposed war between Kentucky and Ohio.
In reply it might be said that Section X of Article I of the
Constitution that reads — "No State, ¦without tbe consent of Con
gress, shall keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace, or
engage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent
danger as vriU not admit of delay," gives authority for federal
control of the two States — ^Kentucky and Ohio. That clause is

228 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
an inhibition on the States — ^imposed by themselves, and confers
no power on the federal govemment. Let us treat its appUca-
bility to the supposed war. Suppose that a State should keep
troops in time of peace, how coiUd the President enforce that
law — which is only organic — against tbe State ? Who shaU decide
that the State is keeping troops? Tbe troops would be citizens
of the State. Tbe Constitution says : "A well regulated miUtia
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shaU not be infringed." Every
State is supposed to have "a well regulated militia." And they
keep and bear arms in time of peace. So that the second amend
ment to the Constitution practicaUy supersedes the clause first
quoted above.
But that clause forbids a State to " engage in war ' '. That is,
with a foreign Power, As it is clear that tbe first clause gives
no power to the President to intervene with miUtary force
between Kentucky and Ohio, under what clause in the Consti
tution could be intervene ? There is a large school of Imperial
ists in the Eastern States who, agreeing with John Fiske,
compare the relation of the States to the National Govemment,
to the relation of counties to a State, It is difficult to under-
sand through what kind of glasses they look. Should two coun
ties engage in hostilities, the Governor, who is commander-in-
chief of the State miUtia, could order out his troops and arrest
the belUgerents, The county lines would not be a lawful barrier
in his march. The State establishes the counties as anciUary
departments of the civil government. The State, through its
legislature can abolish any county, create new counties, or
abolish aU counties, " But what can the federal government do
to the States, or tP any State ? It has bo more authority over a
State than it has ovpr a star, or over any foreign Power, except
to exercise certain powers that pertain to its own autonomy;
as, for instance, the authority to alter in specified particulars the
regulations made by the States for holdmg elections of Senators
and Representatives, Even in the case of domestic violence
within a State the federal govemment has no authority to
interfere unless "on application of the legislature or of the
executive of the State," And the federal government, even in
this contingency, can not respond to the requesit of the Governor
"unless the legislature of the State can not be convened."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 229
The States when adopting tbe Constitution put that inhi
bition on each State — ^not to engage in war with a foreign
Power— because they had delegated the exercise of the war-
power to Congress. The framers of that instrument did not
imagine that any two or more States would ever wage war
inter sese. Hence, nothing was said on the subject. Nor did
they say that the federal govemment could not make war on &
State. But the reason for sUence in the latter case is found in
the very fact of their silence, because the federal govemment
has only delegated powers expressly named, whereas the States
had and have aU powers of a sovereign, except those expressly
delegated. It was not only wholly unnecessary but it would
have been absurd to say the exercise of this or that power is not
hereby delegated, after saying "the powers hereby not dele
gated are reserved to tbe States." Expressio unius est exclusio
alterius. It may be said that the sovereignty of the State as main
tained above in the iUustration of a war between Kentucky and
Ohio, proves more than the writer is willing to admit. That is
to say, K two States can wage war against each other, then it
must follow tbat twenty-two States can make war on eleven
States — as was the case in 1861-5, Yes — that is the inevitable,
logical conclusion from the premises. The position herein
assumed is that each of the States was as sovereign in 1783 as
was Great Britain; that as sovereigns they made the compact
caUed the Constitution in 1788 ; that they delegated the exercise
of certain sovereign powers possessed by each to a common
agent for the attainment of particular benefits named in general
terms in the preamble to their agreement, and then in plain un
mistakable words specified what their agent could and should do
—and tbat it could not and should not do anything not expressly
named. This position assumes also that the States remained, each
and aU, as completely sovereign after the Union was formed as
they were when Great Britam signed the treaty in 1783, It must
be borne in mind that the admission here made is confined to the
question of sovereignty. The hypothetical war between Kentucky
and Ohio rests on the assumption of sovereignty, as does also tbe
concession that the twenty-two States had the power to make
war on the eleven Southern States^ just as they as sovereigns

230 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
had the power to make war on any sovereign. The justice of
that war is an entirely different question, and it Ues altogether
outside of the abstract question of sovereignty of the State,
As the Northern free States waged war on the slave States
during four years, they can not escape the conclusion here
presented. If they were not sovereign, by what authority^ or
law, or right, did they begin and prosecute that war? They
dodge the question and the logical conclusion by sasring the
federal government and not they, began and prosecuted the
war. There are two answers to that evasion. The first is that
the federal govemment has no power to make war on a Statfe
This is BO plain that no statesman has ever denied it, or has ever
asserted that power. The second answer is, the allegation is
false. When Lincoln decided to invade Virginia, did he move
with the army of regulars then under his command? No! He
appealed to the Governors of the Northern States to organize
their State militia — ^to appoint aU regimental officers — and to
forward the regiments to Washington to be enUsted imder his
command. Lincoln had no authority to order out 75,000 men
to invade the Confederate States! Whence did they come!
From the twenty-six States. Who ordered them to take up arms
against the ten Southem States ? The Governors of the twenty-
six States. Who were those 75,000 men? They were citizens
of the twenty-six Northern States. Who armed and clothed
and fed these 75,000 men? Tbe federal govemment? That
gove;mment had no title to anything. It was then and is now
only a trustee for the States, It ovsmed no money — ^np clothes —
no arms. But as trustee for the benefit of the people of the
United States it held money and with it bought clothing and
arms and ammunition. Who supplied this money? It was
levied of the people. Yes, but what people? The people of the
Northern States, of course, because there were no other people
in or of the Union. Had these people of the States no voice in
the disposition of that money? After the money passed from
their hands into the federal treasury did they lose control of it?
Did the federal government acquire an indefeasible title to it—
to do with it as the President might decide? If tbe federal
government were sovereign then Congress might make a bonfire
of it and no one coiUd raise a voice to object.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 281
We vriU take one State as an illustration. For what one
State did, the other twenty-one Northern States did. When
Lincoln eaUed on Andrew, Governor of Massachusetts, for her
quota of the 75,000, he had the right under the Constitution to
refuse. Lincoln had no jurisdiction over him, nor over Massa
chusetts. The Governor of that State refused the Uke request of
President Madison in 1812 to furnish troops. Was that Gov
ernor in rebeUion against Madison, or the federal government?
Could he have been arrested and tried as a rebel, or a traitor?
Could he have been deposed and another Governor installed
who would comply -with Madison's request? If so, by whom?
Where is the law for such a procedure? Could he have been
impeached? If so, under what law? But Governor Andrew
responded to Lincoln -with s^wift delight. Who were tbe men
Andrew ordered to organize for Lincoln to command in his
invasion of the Southem States? Who were the men Andrew
commissioned as Colonels, Majors, Captains and Lieutenants,
and rushed to Lincoln ? Were they some of the drops in that
great indistinguishable sea of mortals in America whom
Webster called "the people?" Were they not aU citizens and
inhabitants — and voters, K of age — ^ia and of Massachusetts?
Did they not go as such citizens ? If not, why when enlisted
were they designated as long as they served, as the First, Sec
ond, Third, PKtieth, Ninetieth Massachusetts regiment? If
those men sent by Governor Andrew were called up by him from
the vasty deep of the sek of American people why were not the
regiments after enlistment simply numbered as are the Regulars
in the United States Army? They were not ordere(^ into service
by Lincoln. They were called for by Lincoln, and ordered out
by authority of the State of Massachusetts, and, hence, they
went as Massachusetts' troops in regiments bearing her name.
Is any more needed to prove that Massachusetts, as a State,
¦^aged war on the Southem States ? Is it necessary to show that
what Massachusetts did the other twenty-one Northern States
did ? The only difference between the supposed war made by Ken
tucky on Ohio, and the war the twenty-tvvo States waged against
the eleven Confederate States, is that the twenty-two used
Lincoln to command the State troops and Congress to vote the
money. This is just what the States ordained in and by the

232 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Constitution should be the course pursued when war might occur
between tbe United States and any foreign Power. And the
power delegated to Congress to declare war was for the protec
tion of the States and for no other purpose. The man who
contends that Congress has the right to make war on a State,
assumes that the framers of the Constitution, and all who voted
to adopt it, were fit subjects for a lunatic asylum.
We ¦wiU suppose another state of facts which may throw
some light on State sovereignty from a different angle. We vrill
take a war between the United States and the allied Powers of
Europe caused by the Panama canal — a war not only possible
but probable. The Nationalists would write of this as a war
between "The Sovereign Federal Government and the aUied
Powers of Europe, ' ' If they did not, then they should make a
funeral pyre of all the bombastic glorification they have deluged
the world with about Southem Traitors, Rebels, RebelUon, In
surrection and Conspiracy, because they would thereby admit
that the war of Abolition was between tbe free and the slave
States, But would the Sovereign Federal Government be the
belligerent fighting the Allied Powers? Should the States sit
still, who would do the fighting? Where are the Sovereign
Federal Government's militia? Every Sovereign has absolute
authority over his subjects. He can make war at vrill and order
his subjects to the field. Can the President do that? Can
Congress ? Should Congress enact that all men between certain
ages should be enrolled, and the President should caU on the
Governors for the men, and the Governors should refuse — what
then? Who could or would enforce that Act? Suppose the
people in New England, who bave alacrity for opposing war
that interferes ¦with trade, were to meet in convention and
declare against the war, and resolve not 'to enUst, could the
President invade the States and force their citizens to serve?
It may be said in reply that Congress has the exclusive power
to declare war against any foreign power, and that it has power,
also, "to make aU laws which shall be necessary for carrying
into execution that power,'' Very true; but those "necessary
and proper laws" can only be "made" to prosecute war against
a foreign Sovereign Power. This power "to declare war"
being one that is inherent to sovereignty, therefore it is claimed
by the Nationalists that the States have "granted" their sever-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 233
sign power to Congress to be used at will as all sovereigns have
the right to exercise it. Let us test this assumption. Suppose
that Congress should declare war against Mexico, or Great
Britain, and the people in the States having a bare majority of
the Congress were opposed to war, could they not stop it? If they
could, what becomes of the vaunted, boastful claim of the sov
ereignty of Congress? That they could arrest the war no one
can deny who knows enough of the Constitutoin to understand
who elect members of Congress, At the first election the people
could send Congressmen instructed to put a stop to the war, not
only by statute or resolution, but to refuse to vote a dollar for
its further prosecution. They could even repeal, instanter, the
law making appropriation to begin the war. This being unde
niably trae, where does the sovereign power pertaining to war
abide ? Is it not in the States ? Does not this demonstrate that
the war power is "delegated" and not "granted" to Congress?
But this is not aU the States could do. Three-fourths of
them could not only stop the war but they could amend the
Constitution by depriving Congress of the power to declare war.
They could go further and abolish the federal govemment, and
each State would then resume — not its sovereignty—but the
fuU and free exercise of the few sovereign powers it had, for
its own benefit, entrusted to a common agent — ^the Congress.
The power to enact a law cairies with it the power to amend it.
The power to amend necessarily impUes the power to add to, or
to take from, the law. Furthermore, the power to make a con
tract, or compact, or treaty, carries with it the power to change
the terms of such agreement, and, also, to rescind it. Here
comes up again Webster's refuge when he attempted to escape
Calhoun's catapult of logic, to-wit: "We, the people, and not
the separate people in and of the thirteen States, adopted the
Constitution," As already said in a preceding chapter, the
doctrines of State Rights and of State sovereignty are so cog
nate, it is almost impossible to present reasons for one that do
not apply to the other. Webster's position on "We, the peo-
„ple," has been reviewed under "State Rights," but several
other views will be given under the head of "State
Sovereignty, ' '

234 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Suppose it were true that "We, tbe people" — i, e., the entire
citizenry of tbe thirteen States, -without regard to State lines or
State aUegiance, made tbe compact called the Constitution.
Would it not follow logically and legally that tbe people who
made the comlpact bave the right and power to change it, to
amend it, to rescind it? In that case, under the established
rule that governs democracy, would not a bare majority of the
qualified voters be sufficient to alter, or to abrogate their own
agreement? But "We, the people," under their agreement, can
not do either. They can not change the dot of an i, or the
cross on the letter t. If "We, tbe people/' made tbat agreement
is it not the strangest abnegation of power in the history of gov
ernments and of compacts and of contracts, tbat the makers of the
agreement then said, in substance, "We are done vrith this busi
ness — although we made the agreement exclusively for our own
advantage and benefit — and we tie our hands forever, whether
come weal or woe to us, and turn the whole business over to
unkno-wn, unborn managers who alone shaU decide what is best
for us and our children. ' ' If the contention of Webster and his
followers be correct, that is what "We, the people," did and
said. For stupidity, assininity, self-immolation, infanticide of
miUions pf their o-wn offspring, insane confidence, can the annals
of the world — outside of lunatic asylums — ^produce a parallel?
Yes, "We, tbe people," after they bad made this compact, tumed
their lives, their fortunes, their liberty, their happiness, their
future and their cbUdreii's over to the keeping of three-fourths
of the States.
But that is not the worst. They said that three-fourths of the
States can amend, alter, add to or take from this agreement.
Why did they not say, three-fourths — or two-thirds, or a majority
of the entire people ? Why did they say ' ' States. ' ' As they say
the sovereign people made the contract, or compact, why did
they select as their trustee a lot of corporations that have no
higher rank, no more dignity and no more power among the
Powers of the world than ' ' counties or cities" bave ? Why select
an assembly of imbecUes called States, who had just granted
away irrevocably to an agent tbe power to protect themselves
from bemg gored to death by John BuU or any other buU? They
not only did not say a majority of the entire people should alone
have the power to amiend, but they said— marVelous tp relate—

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 2BS
that a minority of the people could exercise that power. If
"We, the people," made the Constitution, isn't it a still worse
display of assininity by them to reverse tbe one great principle
of democracy that the majority must rale, and to establish tbe
rule by a minority of the people ? — ^not only rule by a minority,
but that minority of the people to have power to change the form
of govemment. That they did this is as easUy demonstrated as
that two and two make four.

CHAPTER XXXI.
WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WAS AND IS.
Sovereignty cannot abide in anything inanimate. It belongs
exclusively to moral beings — ^to a man, or a society of men.
The government of the United States is not a man, nor men. It
is nothing more than tbe combined powers of the States in
action through their delegates to perform certain duties pre
scribed in the Constitution, The govemment of the United
States is no more than government by the States united — ^that
is, acting conjointly. Every act done by any one of the three
federal departments is the act of aU the States operating ¦
together. Let us test the truth of these propositions. To do this, we
-vrill take the first federal administration of Washington. He
was a private citizen of the State of Virginia. Each of the
thirteen States held a separate election. They chose electors.
The electors of each State voted for Washington to be President,
At tbe same time the same voters who elected the electors voted
for members of the legislature of the separate States. The legis
latures then and there elected, in turn elected two senators to
represent each State. These Senators and Representative ,;
passed an act to create a federal judiciary. Washington then
nominated certain men to be Judges, and the Senators confirmed
his appointees. The federal government then became operative.
If any sovereignty was vested at that time it was not in the
government, for the reason already stated that an inanimate
thing — as a corporation — cannot take or bold a sovereign power,
right, or immunity. The federal government was and is nothing
more than a corporation created by the States.
But as there can not be a government of men except it be a
government by men, or a man, the Nationalists are driven to the
alternative that the alleged sovereignty abides in the men who
operate the federal govemment. There are several sufficient
answers to that contention. The sovereignty of a State is not

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 237
in the Constitution, nor is it in its three departments — the exec
utive, legislative, and judiciary. The sovereignty is in tbe
' people of the State. They are sovereign without a Constitution
or an organized government. It is for them to decide bow they
shall be governed. When the thirteen States elected Washing
ton President, if they had parted with any part of their sover
eign power by adopting the Constitution, it was vested in the
man and not in bis office. If Washington took any sovereign
power where did it go wben his term of office expired ? Tf the
Congressmen took any sovereign powers what became of them
on the 4th of March when Congress died by limitation ? Before
that limitation took effect the people of every State had exer
cised their sovereign power to dismiss these servants and either
to renew their commissions, or to give them to other servants.
In whom did these powers vest until the first Monday of the
foUowing December? A congressman-elect is not a congress
man. He must be vitalized by an oath and by taking his seat.
Again: It is an axiom in the Law of Nations that sover
eignty is "inalienable, immutable and indivisible." Therefore,
jf Washington, and Congress and the Judiciary, by virtue of
their offices became invested -with sovereign powers, they took
aU the sovereignty the people had who invested them. Tf they
did not take all, then all sovereignty remained in the States.
But this Law of Nations is denied by Nationalists. T|iey say
the States retained certain sovereign powers and gave certain
sovereign powers to the federal government. Indeed, as we
have seen herein, one New England stebolar tells us that the
Constitution divided tbe sovereignty of the States and granted
the Uon's share to the federal govertiment. This revelation is
made by John Fiske. It is worthy of repetition at this moment :
"The State, while it does not possess such attributes of sover
eignty as were by our federal Constitution granted to the
United States, does, nevertheless, possess many very important
and essential characteristics of a sovereign body."
"The Constitution granted attributes of sovereignty to the
United States." In gentle consideration for New England's
leaming, let us strip this deformed metonymy of its swaddling
and cover it from pubUc view, and then dress it in plain but
presentable style. This statesman certainly did not intend that
his "figure of speech" should smother his bantling. Dropping

238 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
his rhetoric, we get his meaning to be this: "The State, while
it does not possess such attributes of sovereignty as were by the
separate peoples of the thirteen States granted to the United
States". But where does this change leave him as a statesman?
What are the United States, the alleged grantee, but the thir
teen States united — ^the alleged grantor. And who or what are
the United States but the people of thirteen States acting to
gether? Who made the Constitution but thirteen separate
peoples of thirteen separate States ? Thus we are informed by
this statesman that the people of thirteen States, by united
action, granted to the thirteen States united, attributes of sov
ereignty. That is to say, the thirteen States, each holding at
tributes of sovereignty, granted those attributes to themselves !
If the United States bad been a nation of separate people, as,
for instance, the United States of Columbia, and the thirteen
States acting together had granted their attributes of sover
eignty to the United States of Columbia, there would have been
a grantee entirely distinct from the grantor, and capable of
accepting the grant. But here is an alleged grant of sovereignty
by the States to a corporate body of their own making— having
no separate people under, or within it — of which the grantors
are the corporators, the stockholders, the directors and the ex
clusive owners! Can there be a more glaring, complete, and
nonsensical reduetio ad absurdum ?
If it were worth while to quote law to those people, who,
like the heathen, are a law unto themselves, and make their o^wn
law to suit any purpose at the moment it is needed — as, for
instance, their "Higher Law" when they decided to free their
grandfathers' slaves — numerous quotations from the Law of
Nations could be given to prove the absurdity of their concep
tion of the federal govemment. However, several will be given
here. It must be remembered that tbe fundamental belief of
the Northern people is that the federal government is a Nation.
They always speak of the "National Government" — "Tbe United
States Government" — "The National Union." Lincoln thundered
it in bis inaugural speeches.
First: "Nations, or States, are bodies politic, societies of
men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual
safety and advantage by tbe joint efforts of their combined
strength." (Vattel, page 4, Preliminaries.)

,/¦,'¦'

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 239
Second: "From tbe very design that induces a number of
men to form a society which has its common interests and which
if? to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established
fl PubUc Authority to direct what shall be done by each in re
lation to the end of the association. This public authority is
the Sovereignty, and he or they who are invested with it are the
Sovereign." Third: "Every nation that governs itself, under what form
soever vrithout dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign
State." Now take vrith these elementary and indisputable principles
of the Law of Nations one other, to-wit: that "sovereignty is
immutable, inalienable and indivisible," and we are prepared to
analyze stiU further the nature of tbe-federal government.
First: "A nation is a society of men united together," etc.
Is the federal government a; society, that is, a nation of men
united together ? If so, then tbat society, by the third quotation
from the Law of Nations, must be independent of any foreign
power or sovereign State. In other words, tbe federal govern
ment must be a nation with equal sovereignty with any other
nation, and, of course, independent of every other nation. It
must have aU the sovereign powers, privileges, rights and immuni
ties held by any other nation. And these powers, rights, privi
leges and immunities must be immutable, inalienable and indi
visible. We can now proceed with the analysis.
The federal govemment has no people under its authority who
compose the society tbat constitutes a nation. The federal gov
emment consists of three departments — and these departments
consist of officers only. One man (Washington) fills one depart
ment; twenty-six men (Senators) make one branch of tbe second
department; a larger number (Representatives) form the other
branch of the second department; and a smaller number (judges)
constitute the third department. The Secretaries of State, War
ahd Navy, Attorney General, etc., are but subordinates in the
President's or Executive Department, Wbere are the people tbat
compose this sovereign society, or State, or nation ? Do the officers
of a government make it a nation? Officers command — give
orders — ^they do not obey. Less than a hundred men in this entire
nation and every one an officer, A nation of officers. A nation
Jl composed exclusively of men to give orders. Every one of them

240 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
a constituent part of that nation's sovereignty. Where are the
people who are to obey this triple-handed sovereign? Where
are the people, subjects or citizens, who owe exclusive allegiance
to this nation of officers? They are down below iji the thirteen
States, are they? We shall see.
Again: This nation of officers — aU holding sovereignty—^
decides to make war on another, where are its soldiers? Every
man in the country is a citizen of some of the thirteen States.
Can the sovereign federal nation issue its sovereign command
to the citizens of tbe States to enlist for the war? If it can not
it is tbe only sovereign who could not or can not. No ! Washing
ton must submerge his part of tbe triple sovereignty of the fed
eral nation and make a request of tbe thirteen Governors of the
States to supply him ¦with soldiers. And the Governor of Massa
chusetts has the right under the law of the land to refuse to
comply witb the request, and Washington can exercise his right
to swear worse than "our army in Flanders" — as tradition gives
him the ability to do, but be must choke down bis sovereignty
and take it out in swearing. In support of this proposition as
law, the ¦writer is fortunate in being able to cite no less authority
than tbe sovereign State of Massachusetts, in the case of Presi
dent Madison against Massachusetts, decided in 1812 by Massa
chusetts wben she refused to furnish troops, at Madison's urgent
solicitation, to repel the armies of Great Britain, and to defend
Massachusetts, In fact, the writer is indebted to that bigh and proUfic au
thority for the greatest variety of law that has ever come from
any hundred States, or Nations, li^ving or dead. The legal pro- ,
fession, and also statesmen, are indebted to Massachusetts for the
theocratic system of judicature whereby cases were decided by a
verse, or paragraph from Genesis or Exodus, or Numbers, or.
Deuteronomy, or Joshua, or Job, or the Songs of Solomon; for a
Judiciary caUed a High Court that had jurisdiction over aU,
matters ecclesiastical, civil and criminal ; for the expeditious and
satisfactory judicial procedure of arrest, and then enacting a law
making the conduct charged a crime, foUowed by trial, convic
tion and punishment — ^vulgarly known as ex post facto laws;
for hanging neighbors for difference of opinion on abstrase theo
logical non-essentials; for law justifying smuggling; for the law
of civilized nations that permits the sale of prisoners of war

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 241
into perpetual slavery to raise revenue ; for the law to seU into
slavery in the West Indies white children to raise revenue because
they could not pay fines imposed for failure to attend church
on the Sabbath ; for law punishing Quakers by dragging them
at the cart-tail for refusing to take off the hat ; for the convenient
law of vesting discretion in magistrates to punish offenders, with
out limit to the punishment fixed by law ; for allowing no appeal
from the sentence of these discretionary officials; for hanging
women and children charged with vritchcraft unless they could
prove their innocence — ^the State producing no evidence except
in rebuttal; for denying citizenship unless the person should
join the theocratic church ; etc.

CHAPTER XXXn.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "DELE
GATED" AND "GRANTED".
But the Nationalists insist that the States "granted" cer
tain of their sovereign powers to the federal government. This
is asserted in contradiction of what the alleged grantors say
they did. They say they "delegated" to their common agent
certain powers. This assertion by the Nationalists proves, as
the history of the Puritans demonstrates, tbat there is no law
they will obey. As already said, the highest evidence of the
meaning of any agreement is the unanimous testimony of the
parties to the agreement. Indeed, it is not simply evidence ; it
is proof irrefutable by any kind of evidence. But when they
say "delegated," these republicides affirm that the parties did
not know their own minds and that they made a "grant."
Thus, to get to their desired goal — a Nation in supreme domin
ion over the States — ^they disregard and override the plainest
rules of construction recognized by all ci^viUzed peoples.
Again: They assert that the States intended to make a
Nation that should be "perpetual," As the Constitution is
silent on that subject, these Nationalists go back to the Con
federation where they find the word "perpetual," and they
graft it on the Constitution, They find at the same spot the
words "sovereign State", but they refuse to recognize those
words. If "perpetual" can be interpolated, why can not the
"sovereign?" There is no reason except tbe Puritan's perti
nacity and determination to rale or ruin. But in this instance
he is balked. Neither word can be written into that instru
ment. Neither can be used to explain it. It needs no
interpreter. And the assumption of these grafters has no
parallel except in the "graft" so prevalent among them that
the nations of Europe have been holding their noses since the
explosion of the Credit Mobilier in 1870. There is no canon of
the law more imperious and inflexible than the one that forbids
the effort to graft a word on a writing tbat is so plain in meaning

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 243
that the wayfarmg man, though a fool, can understand it.
There is not a court in Christendom that will permit any law
yer, whether he be a Solon or a shyster, to use any word directly
or indirectly to explain a ¦writing that explains itself, on the
plea that the makers intended to say more or less than what
they wrote.
But the boldest attempt to deflower the English language
and thereby to convert a friendly agreement between republics
into a consolidated, unifled nation and despotism, has been
done by deflant insistence that the word "delegated" means
"granted." Though these two words are not as antipodal as
black and white, nevertheless, they are as variant in meaning
as are tenancy at will and a conveyance in fee simple of the
land to its occupant. The difference is as great as between
the peace and happiness that reigned throughout the States
when the Constitution was agreed to, and the bloody ruin, the
devastation, anguish, agony, demoniac fanaticism and death
thatTeigned seventy-two years thereafter. "Delegated" was
the angel of peace — "granted" was the key that opened wide
the gates of Hell,
Lincoln, so ignorant of tbe A, B, C, of commercial law as
to declare in his inaugural that "a copartnership can not be
dissolved without the consent of all tbe partners," consumed
by ambition — "tbe most powerful of excitements" — to be
known in history as '^The Great Emancipator," exposed
greater ignorance by announcing, almost in the same breath,
that the Union must be perpetual because that word is found
in the Articles of Cpnfederation, He, too, caught tbe cry that
the Constitution needed explaining, and, as it said nothing
of perpetuity, the framers of it meant perpetuity because tbe
colonists in forming what they expressly called "a league of
friendship" used tbe word "perpetual." He, too, refused to
see in the same league of friendship the words "delegated"
and "each sovereign State." Why were they not as probative
as the word "perpetual?'' They were and are, but they, like
the flaming sword of the Cherabim, stood in the path between
his mad ambition and the Constitution, which to tbat hour bad
been the tree of life to millions, but, from that hour, has borne
nothing but apples of Sodom,

CHAPTER XXXm.
ABOUT THE WORD "PERPETUAL"— A
MEDLEY OF LAW AND FACT.
The Nationalists contend that the Union was formed to be
not only one and indivisible, and to bave powers superior to
those of the States, but also that it is to be perpetual. Webster
so taught, and Lincoln so declared in his Inaugural address,
1861. He said: "I hold that, in contemplation of Universal
Law, and of tbe Constitution, tbe Union of the States is per- .
petual." Webster in the debate with Hayne, said: "The
Constitution, Sir, regards itself as perpetual and immortal."
"Perpetuity," said Lincoln, "implied, if not expressed, is the
fundamental law of all National Governments. Continue to
execute all the provisions of our National Constitution, and
the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it
except by some action not provided for in the instrument
itseK." Before quoting further I beg to caU attention to the medley
of law and fact in the above language. First, as to facts. In
the first two sentences Lincoln assumes that the Union of the
States is a National Govemment. This reduced to the simplest
terms means that the United States, by tbe Consitution, are a
Nation. In the first sentence he assumes that the Union of the
States, by the law of tbe Constitution, is to be perpetual. In
the next sentence tbat "perpetuity is tbe fundamental law
of all National Governments." What he affirms of the "Union
of the States" be also affirms as tbe law of National Govern
ments. He thus affirms that the Union is a Nation. A nation,
according to all writers on the "Law of Nations", consists of
a number of men associated together in one body, which is
clothed vrith aU the powers, rights, privileges, exemptions, et
cetera, that belong to a man in a state or condition of nature,
and each and every one of those attributes is immutable, indi
visible and inalienable; wben in that condition the man is a
sovereign; when he and other men agree to associate to-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 245
gether, and one of their number is chosen to rale over them,
each surrenders his natural sovereignty and vests his attributes
in the ruler as a king, a monarch, or emperor ; and their ruler
cannot surrender any one of his attributes of sovereignty with
out the consent of his subjects. These authorities on the Law
of Nations affirm further that such a society of men is a
Nation, and that men (human beings) are necessary to the
formation, operation and perpetuity of a nation.
Lincoln is trying to prove that the govemment of which he
had just been elected by a few of the States as tbe head or
President, is perpetual, that is to say, is indestructible "except
by some internal action not provided for in the Constitution. ' '
To establish that proposition be begins by assuming as a fact
already proved and admitted, the main fact involved in the
controversy between tbe North and the South, and which was
never asserted or assumed by any one as true until Webster so
asserted in 1830. That fact, as Lincoln words it, is that the
Union of the States is a National Government, which expres
sion reduced to its simplest form is — "the government estab
lished by the Union of the States is a Nation." Up to that
date (1830) the makers of the Constitution and their descend
ants were of the opinion that the States had formed a Republic.
The significant fact must be noted just here that Webster and
Lincoln differ, ex profundo ad coelum, on the origin of the
Constitution, and, of course, of the Union. Webster's IKe
preserver, as he imagined, "We, the people," framed and
adopted the Constitution. Lincoln, not speaking as paid coun
sel, says the States formed the Union. He does not use the
word "formed." He avoids circumlocution — to-wit: as there
were no people but those in the States, and as the people in
the States, each State acting separately, adopted the Consti
tution, therefore, the States adopted it and this formed the
Union. Lincoln's mind was not so vast — so oceanic — ^with deep,
dark caverns where dwelt the Sophist, tbe Flatterer, the meta
physical Seducer, who, at the psychological moment, crawled
out from their sUmy dens to teach their Great Neptune there
was no immorality — ^no injustice — ^no treason in selling official
judgment, provided you know you are too strong to be swayed
from an even balance by weight of the gold, Lincoln, there
fore, just as he drove his axe into the rails — ^went straight to

246 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
the mark and said "Union of", that is, Union made by "the
States," And as tbe Constitution alone made the Union — as
there could be no Union without it — ^the States , made the
Constitution,
Resuming the discussion, we return to Lincoln's opinion of
"the Nation" — our Nation — ^with the caution that we must not
forget that the time when all the discussion in and out of
Congress occurred must be confined to the years during which
the States adopted the twelve amendments, I say this, here
and now, because Webster based a part of his speech in reply
to Calhoun on what in legal phrase is called the argumentran
ab inconvenienti — the inconvenience that would result from a
decision in favor of this or that side of a case, or question.
In a case before a Court between two copartners under a
-written agreement, when one has rescinded and the other is
claiming damages caused by the withdrawal, and the right to
withdraw turns on the terms of the agreement, as well might
the plaintiff attempt to set up tbe plea tbat the seceding par-
ner had no right to withdraw because there were debts left
unpaid at the time of the secession. As the Common Law
would compel the seceding partner to pay his share of the
debts, so, in the case of a seceding State the Law of Nations
binds it to meet its proportion of obligations incurred jointly
by the States. And should the seceding State refuse to come
to an adjustment, tl^en, and then only, according to the highest
code of laws known on earth — "Tbe Law of Nations" — could
the other State resort to armed force to compel the seceded
State to do "justice."' This is the law that the States remain
ing in the Union were bound by justice, right, and humanity to
obey. Those matters have no bearing on the question of State
Rights, State Sovereignty, and tbe powers of tbe federal gov
ernment. They are questions to be settled by and between
the States after they might be separated — and for which the
Confederate States sent Commissioners to Washington,
We return to Mr, Lincoln's Inaugural: He declared that
the Union of the States created a Nation, I will set over against
his partisan opinion the decision of a hundred or more sover
eigns who governed the civilized nations for a thousand years,
and whose judgment and vrisdom have been recorded by such
scholars and jurists as Grotius, Puffendorf, Baron de WoK,

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 247
Hobbes, Vattel, Barbeyrac, Wicquefoot, Selden, Valeri, Clerac,
Pothier, Burlamaqui (quoted by Calhoun and Webster made no
reply), Emerigan, Roccus, Santerna, Maline, Malloy, and many
others, passim, I quote the Law of Nations from Vattel : ' ' Sev
eral sovereign and independent States may unite themselves
together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be,
each indi-vidually, a perfect State, Th.ey vrill together consti
tute a federal republic ; their joint deliberations will not impair
the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain
respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it in virtue of
voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free
and independent, wben he is obliged to fulfill engagements
which he has voluntarily* contracted." Omitting the word
"perpetual" we have in this extract the precise confederacy
the thirteen "Sovereign and Independent States" united and
established in 1787. They arranged for joint deliberations every
year by sending representatives to legislate for their "safety
and advantage" in a body they called the Congress. They
appointed one man (the President) to execute tbe laws their
deUberative body might enact, and appointed Judges to con-
stme those laws and specified the subjects and persons over
which and whom their Judges could take jurisdiction. They
set specified limits to the matters over which each of their-
three agencies were to bave control — ^these and nothing more.
There was no oversight made by the creator — ^the only fault,
from the first, has been in their agents, by usurping powers
not embraced in their written commissions. Since 1830 they
have stretched that sacred instrument and usurped forbidden
powers until, in 1860, they announced tbat they were the
reigning sovereign — a Nation, a World Power — and the orig
inal sovereigns were mere dependencies — ^vassals to obey them,
or be whipped like wayward children.
The word "perpetual" requires a passing notice only be
cause the Nationalists — ^Mr, Webster in the lead and Lincoln
proclaiming Webster's heresy — ^insist that tbe confederacy was
uitended by the States to be perpetual. They violate every
rule followed by learned Judges in construing contracts made
by individuals, up to wills, deeds, conventions, constitutions,
and treaties made by sovereigns, by writing into the Constitu
tion, that contains no ambiguity, words intentionally omitted;

248 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
by taking its preamble to construe "the States" to mean "the
people", and the words "general weKare" to mean unUmited
power; and these Nationalists will, no doubt, contend that
while sovereign States can form a perpetual confederacy, they
cannot form one and limit its duration. Another quotation
from Lincoln's Inaugural, 1861, will reveal the length to which
Nationalists go to patch and pad the Constitution, He says:
"Again, K the United States be not a government proper"
(Webster's phrase), "but an association of States in the
nature of a contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably
unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party
' to a contract may violate it — break it — so to speak, but does it
not require all to lawfully rescind it ? "
Here are two propositions announced in the Socratic form
of interrogation to show they are undeniable, that can not
stand a moment before the law. No — ^the "Uiuted States are
not a Govemment proper. ' ' They established a government to
be operated by such of their citizens as, in each State, are the
"moral persons" (Vattel) constituting the sovereignty of the
State. The government thus established and operated may be
a "Government proper," or a Govemment very improper( as
the South has learned through great tribiUation), but the
sovereign govemment was in each State and in operation be
fore the States established another government to do certain
acts which, without it, each of the thirteen States would have
to perform. The second proposition as to contracts is entirely outside
of the question Lincoln was trying to clear up. He takes a
commercial contract — one made by individuals — as on aU fours
vrith a contract, or compact, made by sovereigns. The first is
to be governed as construed by the common law, or statute
law, or civil law, of force within a State or other sovereignty.
Whether one partner (an individual) can lawfuUy break it, or
rescind it, depends on the terms of the contract and the law
of the State, When men "in a state of nature, free and inde
pendent," come together to form a society (call it a State,
Nation, or what not) Vattel states the law to be that "each
member resigns a par^ of his rights in a state of nature to the
body of the society, and that there exists in it an authority of
commanding all the members, of giving them laws, and of

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 249
compelling those who shall refuse to obey! Nothing of the
kind can be conceived or supposed to subsist between nations,"
To iUustrate : If while Lincoln was Uving in Kentucky, there
had been no govemment — ^no civil laws of force — ^he would
have been in a state of nature. Had a neighbor engaged him
to spUt a hundred rails and he had done tbe work, and the
neighbor refused to pay, Lincoln could bave mauled him to his
heart's content, and no power on earth could have punished
him. But, if Kentucky had been under the government of men
who had "resigned a part of their natural rights", and had
laws regulating the conduct of each man or member, Lincoln
could have been punished for assault and battery.
His illustration may be good or bad according as the law
regulating private contracts might be. But be was beyond his
depth in trying to apply tbe law to a contract, or compact,
made by sovereigns. The Law of , Nations alone can be
invoked, and by that law a sovereign is not forbidden to break
or rescind a contract, or compact. But he is bound by an obli
gation imposed by the Law of Nations to do justice — to make
his co-compacter compensation for any damage the secession
from the compact may cause. And should he fail so to do, the
injured sovereign or sovereigns may resort to retaliation or
even to war.
The seceded States offered through Commissioners to com
ply fully and fairly with that obligation.

CHAPTER XXXIV.
SOME COMMENTS ON A LETTER OF
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.
The analysis of the Constitution and the rights of each
State would not be complete without a study of tbe opinion
of John Marshall, Chief Justice, as expressed in a letter to his
cousin, as follows : Richmond, May 7th, 1833.
"My Dear Sir:
"I am much indebted to you for your pamphlet on Federal
Relations, which T have tead with much satisfaction. No sub
ject, as it seems to me, is more misimderstood or more
perverted. You have brought into view numerous important
historical facts which, in my judgment, remove the foundation
on which the NuUifiers and Seceders bave erected that super
structure which ,overshadows our Union, You bave, I think,
shown satisfactorily that we never have been perfectly distinct,
independent societies, sovereign in the sense in which the Nul-
lifiers use the term. When colonies, we certainly were not.
We were parts of tbe British empire, and although not directly
coimected with each other so far as respected government, we
were connected in many respects, and were united to the same
stock. The steps we took to effect separation were, as you have
fully shown, not only revolutionary in their nature, but they
were taken conjointly. Then, as now, we acted in many re
spects as one people. The representatives of each colony acted
for all. Their resolutions proceeded from a common source,
and operated on the whole mass. Tbe army was a continental
army commanded by a continental general, and supported
from a continental treasury. The Declaration of Independence: i-J
was made by a common government, and was made for all
the States.
"Everything has been mixed. Treaties made by Congress
have been considered as binding all tbe States. Some powers
have been exercised by Congress, some by the States separately.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 251
The lines were not strictly drawn. The inability of Congress
to carry its legitimate powers into execution has gradually
annulled those powers practically, but they always existed in
theory. Independence was declared 'in the name and by the
authority of the good -people of these colonies.' In fact we
have always been united in some respects, separate in others.
We have acted as one people for some purposes, as distinct
societies for others. I think you have shown this clearly, and
in so doing have demonstrated the faUacy of the principle on
which either nullification, or the right of peaceful, constitu
tional secession is asserted.
"The time is arrived when these truths must be, more
generaUy spoken, or our Union is at an end. The idea of com
plete sovereignty of the State converts our government into
a league, and, K carried into practice, dissolves the Union.
"I am, dear sir,
"Yours affectionately,
"J, MARSHALL.
"Humphrey Marshall, Esq.,
Frankfort, Ky,"
It is not vrithout full knowledge of the weight of authority
that even the mention of his name bears on the judicial mind
iu America, even now — seventy-seven years after the ermine
fell from his venerable form and he lay do-wn to pleasant
dreams — that I consider the utterances of John Marshall. And
it is vrith tbe greatest circumspection and with diffidence that
even Judges should call into question his decisions on subjects
in which political bearings did not have a tendency to bias bis
judgment. It is well known that be, early in life, adopted the
view of the Constitution ahd the rights of the States so strenu
ously advocated by the Party called Federalists, headed by
Alexander Hamilton. And it is, also, weU known that when
ever questions arose growing out of or involving, collaterally,
those causes of poUtical and judicial division, bis bent was
always with the Federalists, His moral integrity was beyond
reproach, or even an evil thought, and his mental leaning never
varied, and be died, as he bad lived, a Federalist. As this
letter Contains, in condensed form, his opinion against the
rights of the States, that is, against the sovereignty of each
State, I shaU not look beyond it for other expressions by him

252 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
on that subject. It was written but two years before his death,
and after his body had been tormented for years by an incur
able disease. As we shall see, tbe letter has not the perspicuity
that illumines his judicial decisions, but, although his frame
had long been racked by pain, we are not to conclude that
there is any evidence of senility in this opinion. It will save
time and words to bear in mind that the whole question between
the North and the South, from Washington's first administra
tion to this date, turns on the sovereignty of each State, when
Great Britain acknowledged that each State, by name, was
sovereign, free and independent. It is on that immovable base
that I have built tbe foregoing argument, and it is on that
assumption that I venture to question the correction of the
opinion given in this letter.
As already said in another chapter, in my opinion, on the
assumption that each State was a sovereign before 1787, the
right solution of the question can be found nowhere except in
the Laws of Nations — laws adopted by sovereigns for their
guidance and conduct, inter sese — and laws before which aU
other enactments must give way, because tbe highest human
organization is a Nation, The first three sentences in the first
paragraph of the letter require no comment, because they show
only his dissent from the contention of "NuUifiers and
Seceders." The fourth sentence contains the opinion I shaU
consider. That sentence is as follows: "You bave, I think,
shown satisfactorily that, we never bave been perfectly distinct,
independent societies, sovereigns in the sense in which the
NuUifiers use the terms." By "term" he means "sovereign
societies." He then proceeds to state tbe reasons for that
opinion, and I wiU consider briefly each sentence or reason.
"When Colonies, we certainly were not," No one ever
imagined the colonies were sovereigns.
"We were parts of the British empire, and although not
directly coimected with each other so far as respected
govemment, we were coimected in many respects and were
united to the same stock, ' ' Each colony had its separate gov
ernment, just as eaeh of our Territories after organization has
its own government, but they were not coimected, directly nor
indirectly. One was carried on subject to regulation or repeal
by ParUament; the other subject to control, approval, or

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 253
repeal by Congress. The colonies were in no sense connected
and united, until 1774 by the "Articles of Association," when
they agreed to make common cause against the same stock —
Great Britain — and in 1777 by the CoiKederation formed to
supplant the Association of 1774. But in neither case did any
colony to any degree change or surrender in any particular
its powers, its rights, or internal social, or political economy.
On the contrary, in "The Articles of Confederation" entered
into as "a kague of friendship" to make a better defense
against Great Britain, the colonies expressly guarded against
any conclusion or suggestion of any amalgamation, or more
than a combination for defensive war, in Article II, in these
words: "Each State (aU still colonies). "retains its sovereign
ty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction,
and right which is not by this Confederation expressly
delegated to tbe United States in Congress assembled," Be
fore the Articles of Association, which were a war measure
oidy, the Colonies had no more political connection with each
other than any one of them had with Canada. The only con
nection they had witb each other, except geographical, was
their aUegiance to the same empire. And although in the
Confederation they agreed it should be "perpetual," tbat was
but one item of tbe many agreed to in the thirteen Articles,
and has no bearing on the question of separate existence, free
dom and independence of the Colonies. They knew best what
their relations to each other were, and as they expressed that
knowledge by saying each retained its sovereignty, freedom,
and independence, it is impertinence, say the publicists, "^to
assert they did not mean or understand what they said.
The seventh sentence is strictly true, but it proves nothing.
Eighth sentence : "Then as now we acted in many respects
as one people." Except in the Association of 1774, and the
Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence, there is
no historic e^vidence that the Colonies, in a single instance,
acted as one people. I have already sho^wn that in the first and
second they united their soldiers from necessity to prevent
conquest and hanging, and that in the second they declared
each State to be sovereign, free and independent, and in the
third instance (the Declaration) they declared each Colony to
be a "free and independent State,"

254 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Ninth sentence: "Their resolutions proceeded from a
common source and acted on the whole mass."
What resolutions the Chief Justice does not explain. If
history records any resolutions that did not relate to the im
pending hostiUties, or the actual war for independence, it has
not been the good fortune of the writer to see or read them.
The resolutions just before and during the war were on the
same line as the much more solemn declarations in and by the
"Association" and the "Confederation" and the "Declara
tion" — all were to aid in the common cause agkinst a common
foe. The tenth and eleventh sentences contain statements per
fectly true, but aU the facts occurred or existed during the
war waged by the colonies conjointly. The last clause of the
last or eleventh sentence — "and was made for aU the States"
— seems to have been lapsus pennae or linguae — a slip of the
pen, or tongue. It carried the Chief Justice further than he
intended to go. "And was made for all the States," — ^not for
one consoUdated State or Nation, made up of all the people in
the colonies, as Webster tried to prove by the preamble — ^but
for all the States. If for more than one State, the word "aU"
must include two States, and when we get two States, we can't
stop until we include thirteen States.
In the next paragraph the Chief Justice passes from colo
nial years to the period from 1787 to 1833, when he was
writing. UiUess we look through the medium always before
the eyes of this FederaUst, his meaning is not as clear as his
decision on non-partisan questions. He says: "Everything has
been mixed." Treaties ma,de by Congress, that is, by the
President and the Senate were intended by aU the States that
made tbe Constitution to bind "aU the States,'" The States
expressly delegated the exercise of some of their powers to
Congress and reserved aU other powers to be exercised by
themselves. He says: "The lines were not strictly drawn."
They seem to have been as strictly drawn as human leaming
and caution could draw them. That sentence is not clear. He
says : "The inabiUty of Congress to carry its legitimate powers-
into execution has graduaUy annulled those powers practi
cally." Here is Federalism rampant. The vast majority of

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 255

the people complain of the abiUty of Congress to exercise
powers not delegated to it, to the extent of practically
"annulling" the powers of all the States expressly reserved.
The Chief Justice then drifts back to the Colonies, and
quotes from the last paragraph of the Declaration of Indepen
dence — "in the name and by the authority of the good people
of these Colonies," but be omits what they declared, to-wit;
that "the colonies are and of right ought to be free and inde
pendent States." He omitted, also, tbe fact that the good
people of the colonies, through their Representatives in
Congress, made that Declaration, and that they wrote first the
name of each State and signed their names beneath, viz: "New
Hampshire" — "Representatives, Josiah Bartlett, William
Whipple, Matthew Thornton," and so on down to Georgia, the
last: "Georgia;" and, beneath, her Representatives — ^Button'
Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton — signed their names.
These Representatives then resolved that their "Declaration
be proclaimed in each of all the States. ' '
I have re^viewed the reasons assigned by the Chief Justice
for the opinion expressed in the third sentence of paragraph
one and repeated in the last sentence of paragraph two, and in
the third or last paragraph. This opinion will be considered
Ul the chapters on Sovereignty and Allegiance.

CHAPTER XXXV.
SOVEREIGNTY AND ALLEGIANCE.
It is now opportune to discuss the all-important question^^-
who were the Rebels, the Disunionists, the Traitors in that
fratricidal war that has no parallel. Senator Reverdy Johnson
briefly stated the issue that history wUl decide. He said, in the
United States Senate: "If secession was valid in any State,
then the North was the aggressor, and the suppression was a
great crime. Admit the validity of an ordinance of Secession,
and it foUows that the Unionists were traitors to their obUga
tions to the Constitution."
The reader will please note his words — "the Unionists were
traitors to their obUgations to the Constitution" — as much that
foUows is in reply to the faUacy of that hypothesis. It is not
my purpose to discuss now the right to secede, as that has
already been fully considered. However, that question comes
in coUaterally, as it is, to some extent, involved in the discus
sion of sovereignty and aUegiance. It is the last (aUegiance)
that involves the idea, or poUtical creed, expressed in the
words of Reverdy Johnson which the reader has been requested
to bear in mind. Johnson's view of aUegiance is expressed in
four forms by the Nationalists or Imperialists — ^to-vrit; alle
giance to the Constitution, aUegiance to the Union, aUegiance
to the Federal Govemment, and allegiance to the United States
— each and aU being used as equivalents.
Webster's dictionary (1904) under the word ".41legiance"
reads — 1st: "The tie or obUgation of a citizen, or subject, to
his govemment or ruler; the ^uty of fidelity to a king, govern
ment, or state. 2nd : The paramount aUegiance of a citizen of
the Umted States has been decided to be due to the general
government before that (allegiance) due to his own State."
In aU prior editions of Webster's Unabridged, the latter or
second definition is not given. We are not told who so
"decided," nor where the decision is recorded. Tbe American
Cyclopedic Dictionary gives allegiance as "the tie or obligation
a subject owes to a^sovereign, or a citizen to the government^
or State."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 257
The second definition in Webster's dictionary is clearly the
New England interpolation since the War Between the States.
It is a definition given by soldiers, and cannon and bayonets
used by foreign hirelings and negro troops. It was not the defi
nition of New England's scholars, statesmen and patriots in
the year 1812 when she refused to obey "the general govern
ment" that caUed on her to send her soldiers to help in defense
of the country, including herseK. It -wiU be seen that her late
definition of aUegiance is not so accurate as her first in 1812,
however disgraceful and contemptible her action was in refus
ing to aid in the common defense.
To treat fairly and fuUy the question presented so clean-cut
by Reverdy Johnson, it is necessary to revert to the five years
between the close of the Revolution in 1783 and the adoption
of the Constitution in 1788. For it must be borne in mind that
the clearest -view of the rights and powers of each of the thir
teen States can be taken vrithin three short periods — ^to-vrit,
first, from 1783 when the independence and sovereignty of the
States was acknowledged by Great Britain, to June 21st, 1788,
when New Hampshire, the ninth State, agreed to the Constitu
tion, and it became binding on the nine States; second, the
period that elapsed before the four remaining States — ^North
Carolina, Virginia, New York and Rhode Island — accepted the
Constitution; and, third, the time when the last of the twelve
amendments were added to the Constitution in 1804, twenty-
one years in all. >
The reason for limiting the view to these twenty-one years
is that after 1804 no change was made in the Constitution that
could possibly affect the rights and sovereignty of each of the
thirteen States as they existed then ; nor the rights, independ
ence and sovereignty of each of those nine States as they stood
from 1783 to 1788, nor of the status of the four States until
they followed the nine and adopted the Constitution. How
far, K at aU, the rights, independence and sovereignty of each
State were modified, abridged or surrendered by adopting the
Constitution, is the problem before us. As they were declared
by Great Britain "free, independent and sovereign" in 1783,
the proof of the affirmation that they lost some attributes of a
sovereign by agreeing to the Constitution devolves on the
ImperiaUsts who so affirm.

S58 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
To simplify to some extent the propositions to be now dis
cussed, let us take one State. Of the thirteen we select Massa
chusetts. And this not only because we are assured by her
historians, statesmen, phUosophers and poets, that it is from
her that all our blessings flow but also because it would be an
act of philanthropy, however much (as we know) it woidd be
against her desire and greed, to raise her from the servUe,
humiliating and degraded position to which her statesmen and
sons of whom she is so proud, betrayed and sank ber by throw
ing off their allegiance to her and transferring it to another
government — another "sovereign" — and thereby lowered her
rank from her regality among the sovereigns of the world, to a
petty, contemptible fragment called by her orators "a satellite
revolving around the great Central Sun" that was manufac
tured by thirteen satellites and set up in an imperial domain
ten miles square. By ber own confession, Massachusetts has
sunk a thousand leagues below that mongrel whelp named "The
Black Republic of Hayti," and, by tbe classification of States
made by John Fiske, her speciaUst in grading the rank of towns,
cities, states and nations, she is just an inch or two higher
than was Duluth before it was discovered and introduced to
the public by the Hon. Proctor Knott pf Kentucky.
There is this to be said, however, in apology for the sub
mission of Massachusetts to her master — she has always been
the favorite in the harem, and gets the best. She is invited
to the first table, while ber sisters must be content vrith what
she leaves only because she is glutted. She and ber five neigh
boring sisters bave always occupied seats at the right hand of
their lord at the feast so lavish and luxurious, spread by their
sovereign's munificence, and bave been given the royal pre
rogative to dictate to all the other inmates — ^now forty-seven —
what and how much they may eat, wherewith they shall be
clothed, what amount of pin-money they may spend, and, in
doling out these supplies to keep body and soul together, they
can, in addition to getting enough to gratify the greed of any
avarice, except their o^wn, take a rake-off from the other forty-
seven of any per cent, their sovereign sultan's head steward
may name. And all the five have to do to get the rake-off is
to make an humble bow and curtsey — then in a few meek
plaintive tones repeat Falstaff 's sorrowful query: "Do I not

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 259
bate — do I not dwindle? Canst thou not see we are of an
eagle's talon in the waist,' and we can creep into any alderman's
thumb-ring ? Will you who have so much pleasure in us, bave
us grope and stumble like Pharaoh's lean kine? Will you
starve your beloved?" Whether the head steward be named
McKinley, or Dingley, or Aldrich, or Payne, or Taft, the af
fected plaint of the six favorites of the sovereign-sultan never
fails — the "rake-off" is freely, blindly, exceedingly handed
out, but not without the gratitude expectant of future favors
in return to the sovereign's chief butler and his corps of
workers, to keep them at tbe job.
However, the question of deepest and perilous moment is
not what Massachusetts is content to be, but what she was
and is. Was she a sovereign full-fledged and equipped from
1783 when Great Britain so declared, to the day she adopted
the Constitution? To assume that she was would be ignoring
the opinion of America's greatest Jurist^rJohn Marshall, who
is foUowed by Joseph Story and Judge Cooley and other com
mentators on the Constitution. Judge Marshall's language in
the previously quoted letter to his kinsman is: "You have, I
think, shown satisfactorily that we (the States) never have
been perfectly distinct, independent societies, sovereign in the
sense in whieh tbe NuUifiers use the term." It may be more
satisfactory to the reader to turn back and read the entire
letter, although tbe above quotation is the letter condensed.
This opinion assumes that because tbe thirteen colonies, each
admittedly separate and distinct, working under separate char
ters, acted conjointly in resisting the aggressions by Great
Britain; — first, under the Articles of Association; second, in
framing the Declaration of Independence; and third, under
the Articles of Confederation; therefore they were not distinct,
independent societies and sovereign when in 1783 Great
Britain, in Article I of the treaty, wrote these words: "His
Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States —
namely — ^New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free, sovereign
and independent States." Can language be more explicit?

260 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Before 1774 the colonies were as separate and distinct as
any nations could be. The persecutions by their mother coun
try drove them together to make common defense. Their joint
action was during their colonial period. But when they devel
oped into thirteen nations, or sovereigns, what possible relation
did they sustain to each other that could impair or abridge
the perfect sovereignty of each? It is true the Confederation
of 1778, formed by the colonies, was not formally abrogated
in 1783, when they became States, but it did not by any provi
sion forbid or prevent the parties to the Confederation to
become sovereign States. If this be not trae, there was but
one other result, and that was the acknowledgment of the
freedom, sovereignty and independence of the undistinguish
able mass of three miUion Americans as one people under the
name of "The United States," Has any one ever advanced
that idea? Who would admit it K advanced? That theory, if
true, would make hotch-potch of our entire people, and oblit
erate all State lines and boundaries. It would make but one
people, one goveminent, and that govemment a sovereignty.
It would make fools of all the statesmen in America from 1783
to this hour. But, discarding this absurdity, there is left but
the one conclusion — that each State in 1783 became a member,
free and untrammelled, of the world's famUy of sovereign
nations. But there is another answer to Judge MarshaU 's theory of
the States' limited or imperfect sovereignty. This view takes
in the second division of time made above, to--wit, the short
period between the adoption of the Constitution by the ninth
State, New Hampshire, and the entrance into the Union of the
four remaining States. Judge Marshall's language is "We
(the States) bave never been perfectly distinct, independent
societies, sovereign in the sense in which the NuUifiers use the
term," The word "societies" is used by him in the sense of
"nations" — as all -writers on the Law of Nations use it, Vat
tel, in defining a nation, uses the singular number, "society,"
So does Judge Cooley.
The answer to Judge Marshall is found in the status of the
four States not in the Union, What were they during the in
terval between Jime 21st, 1788, when the Union took effect,
and the day each one entered the Union? They were not in

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 261
the Union, The Confederation of thirteen States was no more.
It had been thrown to the winds. It was nothing but a mem
ory, and a sad one at that. The four States not in the Union
were not the old Confederation. Nine of the Confederation
had shuffled it off, and had formed another entirely different.
These four had no poUtical connection -with Great Britain, their
mothelr. They had none with the nine States who were in a
new combination called a Union, What, then, were they?
Each was a "society." Each had an Executive, a Legislature
and a Judiciary, and the citizens of each owed no allegiance to
any power, nation or sovereign on earth, excepting one, and
that was their own State. Can it be questioned, in the Ught of
the Law of Nations, that each of the four States — ^Rhode Island,
New York, Virginia and North Carolina — ^was a "perfectly
distinct, independent and free sovereign?" Can this question
be seriously debated? This being trae as to the four States
before they entered the Union, does it not necessarily follow
that each of the other nine States was a "perfectly distinct,
independent and free sovereignty" before they formed the
Union? Suppose that those four States which doubted and
debated — ^hesitated and feared to enter the lion's den, had
decided -wisely (in view of the war made by States on States)
to keep away from the entrance where all tracks are inward
and none coming out, what would they have been among the
' nations of the earth? Each would have been as perfect a
nation, or sovereignty, as their mother was who had just
acknowledged their majority and started them in Ufe to make
their U-ving vrith aU the responsibUities, rights, duties, immuni
ties and dignity vrith which the mother was clothed.
The next question in order is — ^What change took place
when each State entered the Union? As feach was indisputably
sovereign before entering, did she strip herseK of the richest
endowment a people can possess and enjoy in this life and donate
it to another? Did Massachusetts step down from her regal
throne, and in token of abdication of her royalty, her dignity
and equaUty among sovereigns, lay het crown at the feet of
an irresponsible and dependent creature she had helped to
make? Did she do this vrith full knowledge that, if her
neighboring sisters, impelled by fanaticism or avarice, or in
stigated by the DevU, should steal her property, incite her

262 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
laborers to insurrection, to strikes, and killing her sons, she
would have no power to protect herself by force of arms ; and
that the creature in whose favor she had abdicated the right
and duty of self -protection inherent in every nation, could not
raise a band to protect her? Did Massachusetts voluntarily
transfer the loyalty and allegiance of ber sons and daughters
to this creature of her own hands? Or did she generously
divide the allegiance due to her, and confer a part of that
right essential to the protection and life of every sovereign,
whether a person or the collective citizens of a republic, on the
creature she had assisted to make? If so, how was that alle
giance divided ? Was it halved, or did she quarter it and
generously give three-quarters to the creature — ^reserving for
herself but one-quarter of the allegiance of her citizens? Has
Massachusetts approved and accepted the new, the amended,
the federalist definition of allegiance that her lexicographers
picked up on the battle-field after the "RebelUon" or "Insur
rection" was "put down" by federal armies, written in blood
by a bayonet, which requires her citizens to give first allegiance
to her creature, and, second, to her? Does not Massachusetts'
indorse and teach in her schools, colleges and universities John
Fiske 's degradation of herseK to a rank not quite so low as a
'town or a city?
This new brand of allegiance was unkno-wn in Massachu
setts m 1812 when she notified President Madison that the first
allegiance of her citizens was due to her. Are we to have a
new New England dictionary every time we have a little "in
surrection" that lasts only four years? No! Massachusetts
is not quite so degraded as she thinks she is, as John Fiske
has pronounced her to be, as her Professors in her coUeges
and universities teach that she is. Let "hope elevate and joy
brighten her crest," There are other teachers of world-wide
repute, of authority to which royalty bows in submission, who
differ with her teachers. There are hundreds of them, and
on the questions of sovereignty and allegiance they are unani
mous, Massachusetts was for a few years, if not now, a sov
ereign, and every one of her citizens owed aUegiance to her
and to her alone. Has she destroyed her sovereignty? Has
she lost the allegiance of her chUdren?

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 263
In a prior chapter the first of these questions was discussed
in connection with State-rights. That view was restricted to
the relation of the States to the federal government, and re
quired, of course, an examination of the Constitution, The
question of sovereignty and its necessary and inseparable se
quence, aUegiance, are not to be determined by tbe Constitu
tion, We must look to the only code of laws by which Nations
are governed and to which every Nation must conform. The
Law of Nations is a part of the law of the land add superior
to the Constitution, says Wharton, It is respectfully submit
ted just here that the error committed by all Northern states
men for thirty years before the war to free the negroes, was in
looking no higher than the Constitution for the law that
controlled the States in the Union, Their view was too narrow.
They beUttled the States by resorting to a convention of their
o-wn making as the law by which sovereigns are to be judged
and controUed. Daniel Webster was the Teueer Priijceps in
this offense. He knew better. He was not battling for Truth.
He was a hired partisan. He not only dodged the issue pre
sented to bim by Mr, Calhoun based on the Law of Nations,
but he even evaded the body of the Constitution, and for his
ground of battle he chose the preamble to the Constitution.
And vrith the shout of victory and the cry of triumph over tbe
South — the twenty-two States enlisted at once imder Web
ster's banner. Laws, civil and organic, were not binding.
Fanaticism furnished the law — the rule of action. Men did
riot— would not reason. Seward found a "Higher Law — ^pro
claimed it — the mob adopted it — and it grew in favor tmtU
; legislatures attempted to legalize it, and Judges quoted it to
catch the favor of the mob. Of tbat "Higher Law" that was
found in a higher latitude, but in a very low atmosphere,
notice will be taken later on. The Law of Nations was ignored.
As said before, the writer has not read a single reference by
speakers or writers in the North, within sixty years, to the Laws
of Nations, except two extracts; given by Thad. Stevens,
and his purpose was to justKy his fiendish desire to desolate
the South as a "conquered coimtry." His purpose came up
from the sovereign in Hell — ^his law came down from the
Sovereign in Heaven. He stole "the Uvery of Heaven to serve
the DevU in,"

264 TRUE . VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
What is sovereignty? It is the endowment of one man, as
in a kingdom or monarchy, or an aggregation of men, as in a
State or Republic, with aU the rights, powers, privUeges iand
immunities that every man in a state of nature is endowed
with. These attributes of a man in a state of nature are taken
by all pubUcists or authorities as the foundation of the Law
of Nations, This sovereignty is immutable and indi-risible,
Vattel says: "Every sovereignty, properly so called, is, in its
own nature, one and indivisible, since those who have united
in society can not be separated in spite of themselves."
(Edition of 1869, Page 27.) Oigain: "Since, therefore, the
necessary law of nations consists in the application of the law
of nature to States— which law is immutable, as being founded
in the nature of things and particularly in the nature of man
— it follows that the Necessary law of nations is immutable.
Whence, as this law is immutable, and the obligations that
arise from it are necessary and indispensable, nations can
neither make any change in it by their Conventions, dispense
with it in their own conduct, nor reciprocaUy release each
other from the observance of it." (Vattel, Page 58 of
Preliminaries.) If this be not "Cro-wner's quest law" in Massachusetts, as
she was indisputably a sovereign before she entered the Union,
did she cease to be a sovereign after she entered? If sover
eignty be immutable and indivisible, unless she surrendered —
donated — ^her sovereignty in toto, in solido, did she not retain
it in its entirety? Will her federalism drive her to the extremr
ity of denying an undisputed law of Nations, and to maintain
that she had a Higher Law for her govemment, and that she
retained a fraction of her sovereignty and made an irrevocable
gift, or grant, of the remaining fraction to the federal govem
ment? As she acknowledges that she is less than a sovereign
and teaches that she is but a little bigger than a town or city,
it vrill be of interest, if not of value, to institute a search, or
raise an "Investigating Committee" to find out who or what
o-wns the fraction of sovereignty she granted away forever
when she by ordinance agreed to the Constitution and entered
the Union. For, be it remembered, that a grant in fee is ir
revocable — except, perhaps, it be given under and by the
"Higher Law." Who holds and owns in fee that fraction, or

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 265
the whole, of Massachusetts' sovereignty? In order to deter
mine this question, it is necessary not only to find the grantee
but to decide its legal capacity to take and to hold indef easibly
such a grant. To do this we must analyze the federal govern
ment. This has been done in the chapter on State Rights, but
a brief repetition here is advisable.
In limine, it must be stated that sovereignty is not predi-
cable of any one or thing except a sovereign. Therefore, the
sovereignty, fractional or total, that Massachusetts donated is
not in the Constitution. A paper — a writing — a contract — a
compact, cannot be a grantee — ^much less, K possible, can it
hold, exercise and enforce sovereign powers. But Massachu
setts may have granted her sovereignty to the federal govern
ment. A thing can not receive a grant, although some of our
Northern miUionaires, by wiU, do bequeath their estates to
cats. StiU, in the case of the cats, the bequest must have a
trustee who takes the bequest and holds it for the feline
beneficiaries. Again, even K a thing could take a grant it must be in esse
and not in future. Grants caimot hang around like Mahomet's
cofSn. When the Constitution was adopted, two years elapsed
before the federal govemment camfe into existence. Where
was the sovereignty Massachusetts donated, during those
years? It was not in the paper on which the Constitution was
written. Tf the govemment had not organized vrithin twenty
or more years, where would have been the sovereignty of the
States during that period? When the government was erected,
according to the specifications the architects gave in the Con
stitution, did the sovereignty Massachusetts granted by agree-
mg to the Constitution, and which had been held somewhere
m abeyance or in escrow, vest in the government? Sovereignty
is not only immutable and indivisible, but it is "inaUenable".
(Vattel.)

CHAPTER XXXVI.
SOVEREIGNTY AND ALLEGIANCE-
CONTINUED.
Sovereignty and allegiance are correlative. They are the
perfect illustration of reciprocity. They are cause and effect.
It is impossible for one to exist without the other. They are
inseparable. When men come together and form an independ
ent society they constitute a nation called a sovereignty. They
may form a government of any type they prefer. They may
rule themselves as a pure democracy, or select a Umited num
ber, or choose one man, as their ruler. Tn the first case — a
democracy — ^the sovereignty abides in the entire people who
compose the society ; in the second, it is in tbe select few ; in
the third, it is in the one man, as a king, or emperor. The
instant the power of the people is conferred there exist
sovereignty and allegiance. The sovereign is bound to protect
tbe life, Uberty and property of each subject, or citizen, and
each subject or citizen is bound to his sovereign to the extent
of sacrificing property and even Kfe in support of his sover
eign. Tf the State, or nation, be attacked by a public enemy,
as tbe sovereign must protect and defend his State, nation, or
kingdom, and as he thereby protects and defends his subjects,
or the citizens, they are in duty bound to give their time, means
and Uves, if necessary, to aid their sovereign. As sovereignty
is indivisible, so is aUegiance. As sovereignty is inalienable, so
is aUegiance. By this it is not intended to assert that a subject
or citizen, by leaving bis country and becoming naturaUzed,
can not change his allegiance. But imtil he shaU do that his
allegiance is inviolable. Says Vattel: "The citizen or the
subject of a State who absents himself for a time vrithout the
intention to abandon the society of which he is a member, does
not lose his privilege by his absence ; he preserves his rights and
remains bound by the same obligations. ' '
From the foregoing laws of Nations it inevitably foUows
that a subject, or a citizen, cannot owe allegiance to two
sovereigns at the same time. As two half-sovereignties are

' TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 367
impossible, so two half-allegiances are not known to the law.
As aUegiance can not be divided between two sovereigns, there
fore it is impossible for a subject or citizen to owe a greater
part of allegiance to one sovereign, and the lesser, or remaining
fraction of allegiance to another sovereign.
Those truisms lead us directly to their application to our
American dual — or State and federal — governments. If there
had been no separate societies caUed States in 1787, and the
people en masse had chosen delegates and had sent them to
PhUadelphia to frame a Constitution, and the same people, by
a majority vote, bad adopted the Constitution, there would
have been, after the govemment had been organized, one sov
ereign government, and every citizen within the boundaries of
that govemment would have owed — ^not to the government —
but to the entire people aUegiance, one and indivisible. That
govemment — ^that is, the people actihg through that govern
ment — could then have organized certain districts of the entire
territory into States, or provinces, or arrondissements as the
French did, and have conferred on each, at discretion, the right
to exercise aU governmental authority named in the Act for
their organization. This arrangement would,have been exactly
simUar to what each separate State has done in organizing
counties. In that supposed action we would have bad one
sovereign and one aUegiance, and the construction of the dual
forms of government would now be what Nathan Dane, in bis
flight of fancy, imagined they are.
But the order in time — the primogeniture — of the two gov
ernments was exactly the reverse of the case supposed in the
above and last paragraph. Tbe thirteen States came into life
six years before the federal government appeared. These
States were the parent and the federal govemment is their
child. The man who denies this order of the beginning of the
dual government disputes history as well authenticated as any
m the annals of time. As each State was sovereign, free and
independent before the Constitution was adopted, to whom did
the citizens of each State owe allegiance? Did the citizens of
Massacbusetts owe allegiance to New York, or those of New
York to Virginia, or of Georgia to Massachusetts? The ques
tion carries its answer. As well might we ask to whom does
an Englishman, or a German, or a Russian owes allegiance.

268 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
The main question now arises — ^to whom or to what did the
citizens of the nine States owe aUegiance after they adopted
the Constitution? Allegiance caimot be given to a paper — ^to
a contract, or a compact. AUegiance is due only to a man, or
men, to a ruler — a protector — a defender — of the subject or
citizen. There can be no reciprocity unless there be protection
in consideration for obedience. The Constitution could not
protect, therefore there was no allegiance. This condition
continued for two years. Then the federal government came
into existence. Did its birth change the status of aUegiance?
The NationaUsts assume without argument that it did. This
is the difference between democracy and imperiaUsm — ^between
Uberty and despotism — ^between State Rights and consolidated
NationaUsm. This is the question that determines the difference
between the right of a State or States to secede from the Union
and the right of the States remaining in the Union to foUow
them vrith hostUe armies to force them back in the Union.
The difference between the right to secede and the right to
drive back into the Union by war — ^the difference between lib
erty and despotism — ^was Ulustrated in the conduct of two fed
eral administifations, one succeeding the other; one that of
James Buchanan, a Democrat and Statesman, safe and sane;
the other that of his successor, Abraham Lincoln,-^an Aboli
tionist, a Republican, an infidel, a pagan, "inordinately,"
"intensely," "overweeningly," ambitious; and the subject of
melanchoUa so deep and persistent that his friends had to
guard him to prevent suicide — an administration that furnished
a bloody spectacle that shocked the friends of freedom
throughout the civilized world. The Attorney General and
legal adviser of one administration (Buchanan's) was Judge
Jeremiah S, Black of Pennsylvania, her greatest lawyer, orator,
statesman and controversialist, who advised the President in a
well prepared written opinion that he had no right or power to
make war on any State in or out of the Union; and the Attor
ney General and legal adviser of the next administration (Lin
coln's) was James M. Speed of Kentucky, who had held Lincoln
in his dwelling in Kentucky during eight months under guard,
and who says he had to remove from Lincoln's reach, razors,
knives and aU dangerous weapons or tools to save him from
suicide. Now to the main question:

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 269
It must be borne in mind that the question of allegiance to
be now considered relates to the citizen of a State and not to
a State or States. States owe no allegiance to any one, or to any
Power. Every citizen and every subject owes allegiance to
some person, or to a sovereign power. A citizen can commit
treason; a State caimot. A citizen can expatriate himself; a
State cannot. A citizen can be prosecuted and hanged ; a State
cannot. A State can not be sued in civil courts ; neither can a
sovereign. This question was elaborately discussed by every
Judge of the U. S. Supreme Court in tbe celebrated case of
Alexander Chisholm vs. The State of Georgia, which case
brought about the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution,
forbidding suit against a State. So tbat, the question just here
and now, is, what change, if any, did the organization of the
federal government make in tbe allegiance of a citizen of any
State ? The writer has hitherto said that his aim is to make the
discussion of State Rights, State Sovereignty and cognate ques
tions so plain tbat men who are not lawyers can understand
them. Hence, be, again, must bring forward and briefly re-state
some facts and law already presented. The right of secession,
as before stated, is not to be settled by tbe Constitution. The
Law of Nations determines that question. And the law of p,l-
'. ' legiance is found in the same Code — ^unless there be something
m the Constitution that affects tbe status of the citizen. This
possible distinction is based on tbe difference between the rights
of a State and of a citizen of that State — some points of this
difference being given in this paragraph.
^ Allegiance is due to that Supreme Power that protects life,
(; liberty, property. Is this power for protection entrusted to the
State, or to tbe federal government? It belonged to the States
before they formed the federal govemment. Did they "grant"'
that power — ^throw off that obligation — when they adopted the
Constitution? When a citizen of Massachusetts is assaulted and
beaten, or robbed, or an attempt is made on his life, to which
of the two governments does be appeal for redress? Which
one prosecutes the criminal and defrays the expenses ? Should
• a citizen of Massachusetts have to sue to recover money or
land or any other species, of property withheld by another citi
zen, to what court does he resort — State or Federal? In all

270 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
these cases the injured party must appeal to the State, The
federal government is impotent. Which of the two owns the
right of eminent domain — an attribute of sovereignty? The
State, The federal govemment cannot enter a State and take
possession of land for a fort, or a lighthouse, or an arsenal, or
a mint, without the assent of the State expressed through her
legislature. It cannot get possession of private property of any
citizen in a State without paying fuU value. Its judiciary can
not try a case requiring a jury without tbe aid of citizens of
the State in which the case must be tried. Tn fact, and finally,
(as previously shown in the chapter on State Rights) the fed
eral government cannot exist without the voluntary action of
a majority of the States. Destroy the federal govemment and
the autonomy of States would not be affected in the slightest
degree. Their citizens would be inconvenienced in many ways,
but the sovereignty of each State would be perfect. But no
inconvenience can possibly be considered in deciding this
question, '
The purpose of the States in creating a federal govemment
was exclusively for their own benefit and convenience. That
government derives no benefits by its existence. Its machinery,
its operations, its powers, were intended to be for the good of
the citizens of tbe States. It has no separate citizenry to serve,
or to tax, or to punish, or to make war. Its right to adjudge,
to use the writ of habeas corpus, to make and enforce laws, was
delegated that it might be of service to the citizens of the States,
No intelligent man can dispute or even doubt these proposi
tions. Can allegiance to sucb an agency be predicated? Is it
due to the President? He has, in bis own right, not one attri
bute of a sovereign. Does the delegated power^to make laws,
confer any sovereignty on Congress? Is the limited jurisdiction
of the federal judiciary one of the attributes of sovereignty?
The States said, wl;ien they created these three functionaries:
"You can exercise the limited powers hereby entrusted to you
BO long as we consent, or until three-fourths of us decide to take
one or more from you," Is allegiance due to the supreme au
thority of a society, or to a creature formed by that supreme
authority, which can change, or diminish, or destroy its ovm
handiwork?

CHAPTER XXXVn.
CITIZENSHIP.
We come now to consider citizenship. The words "citizens
of the United States" and "citizens of a State" are used several
times in the Constitution. From this it is contended that there
are two separate and distinct citizenships in this country. From
the latter view has arisen the political heresy that a citizen of
the United States owes prior allegiance to the United States,
and a secondary and subordinate allegiance to his State. On
this theory was based the charge that every citizen who adhered
to his State during the War Between the States or, as the
Nationalists view it, between the federal govemment (a Nation
say they) and the Southem States, was a Rebel and a Traitor,
We can get light on this supposed dual and superior and infe
rior status of a citizen by devoting a few moments to the raison
d'etre of the Union, the motive that impelled the States to form
a Union, The thirteen States, each sovereign and with aU the
duties and obligations thereby imposed, and each standing
alone, weak and open to destruction or absorption by any for
eign Power, concluded it would be to the interest of each to
unite their strength. Another reason was the inevitable squab
bles and conflicts that must occur between thirteen little nations
huddled together — tbe strong, through ambition, or lust for
power and gain, attacking and conquering the weak. Hence
they agreed to have a common representative to deal with for
eign nations and to insure domestic tranquility.
The flrst of these two purposes made it necessary to pro-ride
for immigration and to give AmericaiJ protection to all immi
grants who should desire to become citizens. Hence, the power
to naturalize foreigners, instead of being exercised by each
State for itseK, was conferred on one of their triple representa
tives — ^the Congress, So that when the flrst immigrant was
naturalized under a law of Congress, he became an American
citizen, and, as such, was entitled to such protection of Ufe,
liberty and property as the federal government, under its lim
ited authority, could extend to him. But that naturaUzation

272 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
did not make bim a citizen of any State; nor was it possible
for him to be a citizen of the United States, or States United,
as tbat would make him a citizen of thirteen States. And, yet,
he occupied the position of a citizen by and through naturaliza
tion. That is, he could claim tbe protection of the federal gov
ernment so far as it was vested with authority, vrithout being
a citizen of any State, After naturalization he could go to
Canada or Mexico to engage in business, and that protection
would attend him. If he should enlist in the army or navy and
be captured by his former sovereign, he would be entitled to
the treatment accorded tp prisoners of war under the laws of
Nations, If he should desire to return to his native land, he
would be entitled to a passport issued by the Secreary of State
designating him "an American citizen," So that, in one sense,
there are two citizenships in the territory caUed the United
States — one a floating, federal citizenship, the other attached
to that sovereign body, tbe people and citizens of a State,
We return now to the Constitution to learn what its authors
meant by the words, "citizen of the United States," In Art,
I, Sec, IT, we find their meaning. "No person shall be a Rep
resentative (in Congress) who shall not have attained the age
of twenty-five years and been seven years a citizen of the United
States." The meaning of "United States" is a matter of arith
metic. The States bad not been united under the Constitution
two years before the first Representatives were sworn and took
their seats in Congress, Thus it was mathematically impossible
for a Representative to be "a citizen of the United States" for
seven years before the first Congress. But he could have been
a citizen of a State longer than seven years in the opinion of
the framers of the Constitution, who bad declared each of the
coloiues a "free, independent and sovereign State" in the Art
icles of Confederation formed in 1777 — ^tvvelve years before the
first Congress. From this review of the word citizen and its
connections in tbe Constitution, it appears that before the
Fourteenth Amendment made after the war between the North
ern States and the Confederate States, there were no citizens
except those of the several States, and the few naturalized citi
zens before they selected a State to become citizens of it. This
condition of citizenship was admitted by the AboUtion fanatics

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 273
and they, therefore, drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to
create a dual citizenship in these words: "All persons bom,
or naturalized, in the United States and subject to the jurisdic
tion thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside."

CHAPTER XXXVm.
MORE AS TO SOVEREIGNTY— THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENT.
The first amendments (ten in number) were made to protect
citizens of the States from oppression by the federal govem
ment. I have already quoted and given the number of the
inhibitions laid on the government by the States in those
amendments. Article XI is the most significant of all, and, in
this discussion of sovereignty of each State after the Constitu
tion was adopted, requires special notice. It is this :
"The Judicial power of the United States ehaU not be con
strued to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of an
other State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
(The capital letters are given as in the amendment.)
This amendment was adopted to repeal a power given in
the original, in 1787, to the Judicial Department of the federal
government in and by Article 3, Section 2, in these words:
"The Judicial Power shall extend to aU cases, in Law and
Equity * * * * between a State and Citizen of another State
* * * * and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign
States, Citizens or Subjects."
The difference between the original power and the amend
ment is infinite: that ia to say, it is the difference between
something and nothing. By the original grant of power to the
Judiciary, a State could be sued by citizens of another State,
and by citizens or subjects of any foreign State. Why was this
amendment made ? ' It was because no sovereign can be sued in
law or equity without his express assent. This exemption is
one of the immutable rights that pertain to and is a part of
sovereignty. After consideration, between the adoption of the
Constitution and the meeting of the first Congress, the States
saw that, by that delegation of power to the federal Judiciary,
they bad surrendered a most important sovereign privilege or
exemption, and as soon as they could act, they resumed it.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 275
Amendments I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VH, VIII, are to protect
individuals from oppression by the federal government. Arti
cles IX, X, XI, are a declaration of State-rights or of sover
eignty, and XII regulates the election of President and Vice-
President. If it be trae, as contended by the Nationalists, that "the
people" made the Constitution, and that every power spoken
of therein was granted in perpetuity to the govemment, and
as one of those powers granted to the Congress was — ^"to make
all laws which shaU be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers, and aU other powers vested
by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or
in any Department or Officer thereof;" and, as the Congress
was made the judge of what laws are "necessary and proper,"
does it not follow, logically and legally, that the Congress
under that unrestrained discretion had the indefeasible power
to regulate criminal procedure in the federal courts for trial of
aU grades of crime: to say how and where troops could be
quartered; to say whether the people might keep and bear
arms; to say what amount of bail should be required; what
fines should be imposed ; what punishment should be inflicted ;
to say what should be freedom of the press and of speech? Do
not all these powers belong, by the Law of Nations, to sover
eigns? If so — and who can deny it? — was not tbe Congress, by
that grant of power to make all laws it might decide to be nec
essary and proper, vested with one of the rights and privileges
of a sovereign? And as a sovereign power is "immutable,"
"inaUenable" and perpetual, how did it come about that "the
people" who had given that power, could, within two .years,
say — ^not to the Congress alone, but to that "sovereign Federal
Government:" "You shall not do any one of the acts named in
eight of these amendments made by us?" But the National
ists and Imperialists may. answer that "power to legislate on
the subjects specified in those eight amendments is not named
in terms among the many powers expressly granted in Article
1, Section VIII. They were overlooked by "the people" when
they wrote the Constitution, and not being specifically granted
"the people" did not withdraw, or deprive the Congress of,
a granted "sovereign power." Nor did "the people" expressly

276 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
give the Congress power to take their money, and make a gift
of eight hundred thousand dollars to the subjects of Italy and
Sicily, but a Congress of Nationalists said they could lawfully
do it and they did it. Nor did "tbe people" grant power to the
Congress to make a gift of their money to President Taft to
spend in touring the country to get himself re-elected, to keep
the Nationalists' hands in the treasury. If this Congress of
Nationalists had lawful power to give away $25,000 to Taft,
could they not lawfuUy give him $250,000 or $500,000?
The answer by the Nationalists is not supported by law in
or outside the Constitution. The gifts to the people of Italy and
SicUy, and to Taft, if not midday robbery of "the people,"
were not made by right of any power given to the Congress.
They gave away the people's money on the assumption by
Nationalists that the Federal Government, as soon as organized
in 1787, became instanter a sovereign over and in control of
the States, and, as a sovereign, has the right to give away "the
people's" money to any one the Congress may decide to favor,
or to enrich. It is not surprising that a Congress of National
ists, in order to hold despotic rale, should believe they have the
right to do as they please with "the people's" money, but it
shocks the conscience of all men, not Nationalists, that a lawyer
and a Judge should take money thus filched from "the people."
But even if the answer of the Nationalists that there had been
no express immutable and perpetual grant to Congress over
tbe many governmental regulations named in the eight amend
ments, and tbat, therefore, no inhibition was placed on the
sovereign Federal Government until those amendments were
adopted, that answer is of no avail to the eleventh amendment
relating to suits against a State, That amendment raised and
settled for such time as the Constitution shaU be respected as
law, the question of State-Rights, State sovereignty, and of
sovereign power claimed for the Federal Govemment by
Nationalists, A statement of the facts of the record is all the
demonstration that argument of any length could establish,
"The States "^Mr. Webster's sovereign "people" — de
clared in and by the Con&titution in 1787 that "the judicial
Power of the United States shall extend to all cases in law and
equity between a State and Citizens of another State, and be-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 277
tween a State, or the Citizens thereof and foreign States,
Citizens, or Subjects." In 1798, the same States — ^Webster's
sovereign "people" — made another solemn declaration that the
judicial power of the United States "shall not be constraed to
extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or
by citizens or subjects of any Foreign State."
Is argument needed to r-onvince even Nationalists that the
amendment of 1798 repealed that part of paragraph I, Section
II, Article III of tbe Constitution, just quoted, that was adopted
eleven years before this amendment was made ? The Nationalists,
though wild, and damners of the Constitution as "a covenant
¦with Death and an agreement with Hell," are not idiots.
But what does this amendment establish? It proves, as
clear as reason can establish any proposition, that Mr, Web
ster's "the people" did not grant to the Federal Govemment,
or to the United States, any power that "the people" cannot
take away at wUl, for the power to resume one grant necessarily
can take away another grant. If the Federal Government, or
its Judiciary, hold that jurisdiction is a sovereign and immut
able right,, why did it, without a straggle or protest — yes,
dumbly — ^permit the States to wrest that sovereign right from
it? The reasons have already been stated in the chapter on
State Rights. It was because "the people," as a single aggre
gation, did not and never did exist. It was because the people,
as a body, had no voice in making the Constitution, It was be
cause the people in each State, holding in themselves the sov
ereignty of the State, made the Constitution. It was because
the States acting together made a Constitution and erected on
it a government which they through their own citizens were to
conduct, regulate, and have entire control of. It was because
the powers committed to the federal govemment were to be
exercised by certain of their own citizens to be selected and
appointed at stated periods by the States themselves. No re
sistance was made to the withdrawal of that Judicial authority,
because there was no separate people, or sovereign, in existence
to raise a hand or voice. The only people, or sovereign, or
thing that could object, or could speak, was the States, who
decided to undo what they had done. The Congress, the ser-

278 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
vants of the people, acted with tbe people to destroy the judicial
power. The so-called sovereign Judiciary was the creature of
the sovereign people, who withdrew its rights to have jurisdic
tion over a State, We reach the reduetio ad absurdum of the
Nationalists' contention when we run against the inevitable
proposition that "the people," or the States, when they at
tempted to grant inalienable and perpetual powers to the
federal Government or the United States, as contended, were
attempting to grant that power to themselves.
Again, it was because there was no grant made by States
of any power. They appointed one agent to act for all the
States, The States so said in terms in Article X of the twelve
amendments. The States or people of each State, speaking vrith
unanimity, declared: "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 to the people,"
"The powers not delegated," Powers are delegated to a
delegate. Who and what is a delegate ? Noah Webster defines
a delegate to be "one appointed and sent by another vrith
powers to transact business as his representative; a deputy;
synonyms — deputy, representative, commissioner, vicar, attor
ney, substitute." Under the verb "delegate," he says: "To
depute; appropriately, to send on an embassy; to send with
power to transact business, as a representative.
"2: To intrust, to commit, to deliver to another's care
and management ; to delegate authority to an envoy, represent
ative, or judge."
He defines an agent to be (head 3) "a substitute; a deputy,
one intrusted with the business of another; one who acts for
another, as his representative,"
The States declared — "The powers not delegated, intrusted
and committed to the United States by the Constitution — "
The word "delegated" is the voice of an interpreter. It
interprets the entire writing called the Constitution. "The
powers," include all powers — each and every power "not dele
gated." It is not speaking of the Present, but of the Past.
The States, clothed with absolute sovereignty, declare: "The
powers which we delegated, two years ago, in and by our joint
contract, compact, or agreement, by which we created an agent

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 279
to transact certain of our business, are specifically set forth in
that writing." This is the voice of the States giving their
construction of what they intended to do and did when they
agreed to do, through a common agent, certain business for
their "mutual protection and advantage." They put no time
limit on the agency — ^that is, as to the length of time the agency,
or machinery through which their business was to be done,
should continue, but they agreed to dismiss their agents (rep
resentatives) every two years; their agent, (the President)
every four years; and their Senators every two, four and six
years. Their other agents, the Judges, could continue "during
good behavior."
For the construction of a ¦written instrument, there cannot
be any evidence of its meaning so high or authoritative as the
unanimous testimony of those who made it. Every court in
Christendom has declared that evidence to be conclusive. The
States unanimously declared that they had only "d61egated"
to the Congress, the President and the Judiciary, the exercise
of a few of their powers ; and had expressly reserved the exer
cise of all other powers. Tbe power of a sovereign to dismiss
an agent and to terminate the agency was never questioned, or
doubted, until Mr. Webster, in the brief of a hired lawyer, con
tended in 1833 that the agent could compel its principal, its
master, its creator, to obey a law which its creator adjudged
to be contrary to instructions which the principal had given
in unmistakable language, A hypothetical situation, or condi
tion of State affairs, vrill show the unsoundness of Webster's
bought opinion. It is this: Suppose that all the States had
nulUfied the tariff Act and refused to let it be executed within
their borders. Would the legal aspect of the situation be
changed from what it was when one State — South Carolina —
nullified? If so, it is for Nationalists to show the difference.
South Carolina asserted a State right — ^the right of a sovereign,
and the undoubted right of a principal, on the assumption that
the federal government was and is the agent of the States
"without an interest coupled" with the agency. If all the
States — if half the States, each acting separately, can nuUify,
why has not one State the same power or right? If all the
States had nulUfied that tarirf Act, would it have been the duty

280 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
of the United States, through tbe goivemment at Washingon,
to enforce the law to collect the custom duties? If one were
lawless, would not two nuUifiers be lawless? Would not haK?
Would not all ? The Nationalists ' reply is that ' ' a State cannot
nidlify," (which is begging the question) "cannot commit
treason; the people, the individuals who resist would be the
traitors. President Jackson did not say he would hang South
Carolina. He said 'I wiU hang Calhoun.' "
In the case supposed — of nullification by aU the States-^
whom would Jackson have hanged? The people of aU the
States — all the people of all tbe States who defied the tariff
law ? Could the agent hang his principal because he refused to
ratify an act done by tbe agent which tbe principal asserted
exceeded the authority he gave to the agent? But that is not
tbe chief fault in tbe contention by Nationalists. They must
show bow tbe sovereign United States can enforce obedience to
the law. Where could the President get an army? The States,
says the compact, supply all soldiers. The president has to
request the Governor of each State to lend bim men called sol
diers. The Governor alone has the right to call on citizens of
his State to enlist. He alone can appoint Colonels, Captains,
Lieutenants, The Governors of the New England States re
fused to furnish troops to President Madison in 1812, and the
"Sovereign United States" had to submit to John Fiske 's little
dependencies (the States) that are not quite so much "media
tized" as cities and counties, and tbat gave away, like spend
thrifts, to their creature in 1787, tbe most, the best, the highest
attributes of sovereignty each held; yes, stripped themselves
of the powers necessary to seK-preservation — ^that, by the high
est law on earth, "The Laws of Nations," are "immutable,"
"indivisible," and "inalienable;" the power to make war, to
coin money, to levy taxes, to make treaties, to own a warship
— and are now little Persian satrapies, Roman provinces, arron
dissements, or cantons; "little stars revolving around and ex
isting by the light and heat of the Central Sun at Washingt6n"
— all under the control of the sovereign Nation — ^the World
Power — the Empire — whose throne is in the White House !

CHAPTER XXXIX.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
"We are the creatures of circumstance and passion." The
truth of that axiom was never better exemplified than in the
career of Abraham Lincoln. On tbe current of Time, when
unraffled by gales of passion ; when the roar of battle has died
away and the rumbling of commerce has followed; when the
door to the temple of Janus has been closed long enough to
creak on its rusty hinges, millions of men have come, played
their parts on the stage of IKe, and passed, leaving nothing but
a brief and loving epitaph, who were superior in every par
ticular, mental, moral and physical, to the subject of this notice.
Had the Commune not taken control of Paris ; had the red cap,
that portent of blood, not been the patriots' insignia of power;
had not the Menads, fierce and furious with hunger, kindled
fire in the hearts of the sans-cidottes, — ^the incomparable Cor
sican would, no doubt, like Desartes and Leverrier, have filled
the chair of Mathematics in a coUege, and might bave discov
ered the planet Neptune,
Had not Harriet Beecher Stowe given birth to that fox and
tied fire to its tail, and tumed it loose in the Northern prairies ;
had not a madman attempted to incite negro insurrection in
Virginia; had not the Democrats in convention failed to make
a nomination in 1860, the fame of Abraham Lncoln would bave
drooped at the confines of Illinois, and the savor of his name
would have lingered and perished in the western haunts con
genial to vulgar and obscene anecdotes and stories. But cir
cumstances and fanaticism took him as he was, and raised him
to the pinnacle his vaulting ambition coveted, and whence the
bullet of a madman apotheosized him. The dead Lincoln has
aroused enthusiasm to the degree of a craze. The bibliography
of Lincoln written during forty years is quadruple that on
Washington during 113 years. In fact, Booker, the negro, is a
close second in popular favor, in the Northern States, to George
Washington. Andrew Carnegie, as reported by the press,
after a careful analysis of the white and the black Washington,

282 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
gave it as his deliberate opinion that the negro is a few laps
ahead. This was said just after a few words from Booker had
so amazed the ignorant Scot, that he jerked out $650,000 and
donated them to his wonder, Booker — ^more amazed by such
waste of money, thinking he might be required to build and
keep up an Infirmary for Fools, and probably have to take care
of this spendthrift in his old age — after getting his breath,
asked what the check was for. "For you, or your school, just
as you vrish."
It seems that the glory of the Founder of the Republic of
American States was eclipsed when Lincoln by war destroyed
it, and raised the federal government — ^the creature of the
States — ^to the rank of a sovereign Nation over and controlling
the States, This was bis opinion expressed in bis Inaugural
of March 4th, 1861, and that opinion was his justification for
making war on the seceded States before getting authority
from Congress — ^the only tribunal that can declare war, and
that only against a foreign nation. But I must not discuss the
law at this moment. These worshipers of Lincoln dead, turned
their backs to him until his tragic taking-off. When he was
nominated for the Presidency in 1861, the Northern press was
cachinatory over the absurdity of such a hoosier at the helm
of State even in a calm; what could he do in a storm? The
walks of private life, the highways of commerce, hummed and
echoed with "rail-splitter"— "gawk" — ^"Hoosier" — ^"a walk
ing cyclopedia of dirty stories" — ^"an ignoramus" — aU true
except the last. When Lincoln opened the ball with 17,000 sol
diers at Bull Run — ^fanatics at the head of whose frantic column
he stood like Lucifer "proudly eminent" — and marched over
the Constitution into Virginia, the hilarity was hushed, the
comedy, through ambition, had in a twinkling become the trag
edy, not for one to be stabbed, but in which nations had been
kUled, When that Sabbath sun— that had looked on the thou
sands of Uvid faces tumed to him as K praying for life — ^went
down, and the thousands had been scattered as chaff; when the
women, arrayed as lilies never are, with their Beaux BrammeU
as butlers to pour the champagro and serve the luncheon, drove
out from Washington that hoUday to rejoice at the butchery
of their betters, and to wave their satins and silks, as the Rebels

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 288
were captured and marched to the tune of traitors and rogues,
and the race began between iiKantry, carriages with guns, and
carriages vrith Brummells and disheveled women — ^too pale to
weep — ^to reach Washington, the curses then poured molten on
Lincoln and his fanatical mob were such as no American, except
Benedict Arnold, had ever evoked.
That was but the opening fusillade. From that day to the
middle of 1864, a cannonade of abuse saluted him. "A fool,"
"an ass," "an idiot," "imbecUe," "constantly swapping Gen
erals," not regarding his old saw — "not to swap horses while
crossing the branch," "not fit to govern a cage of cubs," "why
run down deserters — ^he'U turn 'em loose." Thousands wished
to get rid of him, but the only road to send him away was
through the baUot box. He was vilified throughout the Union.
Strangers, judging by the language, and not knowing of whom
it was spoken, would have believed a villain, a pirate, a cracks
man of a hundred banks, or an idiot was the offender. These
anathemas were thundered through the Northern press for near
three years. When it became evident that the Confederate
States, from exhaustion, could not maintain much longer the
principle of sovereignty of the States they liad advocated in
the Union for seventy years, and had endeavored to uphold out
of the Union, the abuse of Lineoln became less violent, and
finaUy simmered do^wn when General Lee surrendered. Then,
the negroes being freed, as the fanatics believed, by Lincoln's
buU caUed the Emancipation proclamation ; and The Nation, as
they styled it, being saved, abuse and vilification changed to
commendation, then to praise, until, rising on the unsubstantial
fabric of enthusiasm, bis late traducers discovered ¦ Lincoln to
be a hero. So he stood until bis unfortunate end at the hands
of a madman. Then, with clamor and shout for revenge and
blood, came the erstwhile calumniators laden with wreaths of
laurel and bay, songsters reciting poems, orators crammed with
historic examples of heroes, great warriors, statesmen and
saints, to find a paraUel to the man who had "saved the Nation
and freed the negroes,"
When a man persistently abuses a neighbor for years and,
on receipt of a benefaction believed to come from the hands of
that neighbor, suddenly changes from abuse to unbounded

284 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
praise, and then to hero-worship, who shall say whether the
abuse or the praise is based on truth? When a large aggrega
tion of men pour vials of wrath on one in authority over them
for years, and they suddenly receive an invaluable property
made by the operatives in tbe corporation of which their
quondam villain is president, and, from vile slander, the recip
ients of the property shout his praises on bended knees, who
can decide whether the abuse or the praise was deserved ? Cer
tainly both cannot be trae, Tbe supposed invaluable property
was the "Nation saved," and the imagined Savior was Abra
ham Lincoln. A greater deception no people ever practised on
themselves. No more delusive dream ever possessed the brain
of an enthusiast, Lincoln the Savior of the "Nation?" Lincoln
a great General? Lincoln another Washington, another Marl
borough, another Wellington, another Lee? He was a wonder
ful cyclopedia of anecdotes and homespun stories — ^the major
ity shockingly obscene, but to say he was in any dense a warrior
is tbe cruel flattery of a sycophant. One of the substantial
grounds of abuse throughout tbe North was his ignorance of
the art of war. He has been lauded as an almost infallible
judge of men — ^that, too, in the face of his continual blunders
in choosing men to command armies. Did be exemplify his
marvelous judgment when he removed General after General
over tbe army in Virginia? If so, what shall be said of McClel-
lan, of Pope, vrith "Headquarters in the saddle;" of Halleck,
and Burnside, and Meade, and, also, of Banks, tbe "Confeder
ates' Commissary" in Louisiana?
Born in the lowlands, Lincoln was early infected by their
mephitie exhalations which became pestilent to companionship
in every walk and station. No change of position, no height of
official elevation, could ameliorate it. The polish usually given
by contact with refinement, the respect due from youth to age ;
tbe reverence that aU, young and old, pay to those who try to
lead the world to Heaven, produced no more effect on his natal
and social proclivity than do rain-drops on the armadiUo. As
tbe lower insect and crawling world are by instinct dravra to
and feed on putrid things, his associates gathered to and clung
to him, attracted by the foul drippings from his tongue. The
atmosphere of the West, before Lineoln was known beyond the

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 28B
borders of lUinois, was saturated and reeked with his stories so
delightful to the vulgar and salacious appetite. I have said this
infection continued fi^om youth through life. One instance ia
sufficient proof of this assertion. During the war, some young
men of Baltimore, who as Christians had become sickened by
its bratality, held a meeting at which the Rev. Mr. Fuller, pas
tor of the Presbyterian Church, tlutaw Place, was present to
take counsel tp decide if they could do anything to diminish
the horrors of the war. They decided to send a committee with
the Rev. Mr, Fuller at the head, to see President Lincoln, They
went — caUed at tbe White House, and the chairman spoke in
behalf of those Christians, Lincoln heard bim in silence. When
Mr. FuUer concluded, Lincoln without comment or reply, said
the*

CHAPTER XL.
LINCOLN VIEWED IN DIFFERENT
ASPECTS.
The annals of all history show no prototype or counterpart
of Abraham Lineoln. In every aspect he was sui generis. There
have been men of even greater monstrosity in one particular;
but, in his triune assembly — ^physical, mental and moral — ^he
stands alone. In every physical attribute he was abnormal.
He was six feet four inches in height; his arms were long Uke
those of the gorilla; his hands very long with uncommon pre
hensile capacity ; bis legs out of proportion in length ; his trunk
short ; his chest very narrow betvveen the shoulders, and from
front to rear simken as vrith consumption. His face had not a
normal feature; his nose stood away to the right like the im
mortal nose of Jack White; his ears were very large and set at
right angles to his skull; his mouth was misshapen; his fore
head retreating; his eyes small and chin projecting; his feet
large and he was stoop-shouldered — ^his voice was piping, and
his gait ambling, shambling and rambling.
His moral side was worse than his physical. He was amiable
with men, but cruel and perfidious to women. To creditors he
was true, to women he was false. He tmderstood the obligation
of his promissory note, but for his promise of marriage, he had
no sense of honor. He knew nothing of the fitness of timie, place
and subject. It was all one to him whether he told his filthiest
stories to a preacher, on the hustings, or in a barroom. In his
letter to Mrs. H. 0. Browning, he makes cruel sport of Miss
Mary Owen, who had rejected three times his offer of marriage.
The letter is an attempt at vrit. Although a pitiable failure as
vrit, it is proof of malice and of -vulgarity, baseness, indecency
and savage nakedness of soul. It is a shocking revelation. His
vile thought was insulting to Mrs. Browning. The language
deserves execration even in a bawdy-house. No people who
respect and honor women would tolerate such an untutored
savage. No woman should mention his name in praise until

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 287
veUed to escape identity. The letter in full is in the Appendix
to this book. It is given as his own contribution to the cloaca
of his thoughts, and a commentary on the refinement and in
teUigence of Lincoln's paean-singers and worshipers.
It is claimed that he had a strong will ; that he was slow in
reasoning, but, a conclusion once reached, no man could move
him. This is not a bad definition of obstinacy, or of stubborn
ignorance. "A -wise man changes his mind — a fool, never."
This quaUty, however strong, has never made any man great,
Lincoln was a fatalist. He was in no sense a Christian, He
rejected all religious creeds. He maintained as a part of his
moral code that the most benevolent acts were dictated by
selfishness. This gives the key to his desire to free the negroes.
He was the victim of many superstitions. He often told his
partner he would die in some horrible manner. When he left
home to become President he said he would never retum alive.
On the quality of the third of his triune attributes — his
mind — ^there was and is diversity of opinion. He was never a
student, although anxious to be a scholar. Herndon says he
never read any book from beginning to end. Yet he was a dili
gent reader. He always read aloud. Often, while Herndon was
busy studying a case, Lincoln would lie down, prop up his heels,
and when apparently in deep thought he would burst out in
loud laughter at gome dirty story. He would delay cUents from
giving the firm business, to spin yams ; and although he would
repeat stories a hundred times, he invariably laughed as loud
and as long as any listener to whom the story was new. He
had but one rival in thus applauding his own performance. The
State of Georgia produced a black negro who was blind, and
an idiot in every respect except in music. He was called "Blind
Tom." As a musician he was the most wonderful of all musi
cians. He toured America and Europe. When he finished a
piece he would rise from the piano stool, clap his hands and
applaud as wildly as any of his audience.
Herndon says his partner "was inordinately ambitious."
That passion "to figure in the world's eyes" mastered aU
others. The aUurement of political office caused neglect of the
business of life. Defeat could not abash him. He rose from
the ground to pursue office with renewed energy. But his mind

288 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
was overshadowed. He was pursued in every position in life
by melancholia — a grade of insanity. He told his intimate
friends he dared not carry even a pocket knife because he feared
he might commit suicide. As to whether the bar sinister attached
to his birth preyed on his mind, or melanchoUa was innate, there
was difference of opinion among those who knew him best.
This dark shadow enveloped him when he emerged from the
cave of his birth, and it may be truly said that "MelanchoUa
claimed him as her own" to the hour when his presentiment of
a -violent death was resolved into prophecy. The assertion that
he was perfidious and dishonorable to women must not be left
supported only by his letter to Mrs. Browning, mocking and
ridiculing Miss Owen — ^his second love. That puts him under
the ban of all who are not touched with negrophilism to the
extent of fanatical blindness and of insensibUity to decency,
and to what is due to their own mothers, wives, daughters and
sisters. But his conduct in his third affair of the heart, if it
may be so dignified, was as dishonorable as it was cruel, and as
cruel as a stab through the heart by an Apache.
Lineoln, in his boyhood, led the life of a vagabond — ^that is,
his career was aimless. He was like driftwood. He had no
steady employment. He split rails. He drifted down on a raft
to New Orleans for $8.00 per month. He umpired dog-fights^
cock-fights, wrestling matches and foot-races. He clerked in a
store awhile ; then cut cordwood. He and a Mr. Berry bought
on credit the stock of a failing store-keeper, and whUe Lincoln
engaged customers at one end of the store with -vulgar tales
and politics. Berry, at tbe other end, was drinking up the stock
of whiskey. It needs no historian to write the epitaph of the
firm of Lincoln & Berry. When Black Hawk, the Indian Chief,
crossed the Mississippi, east, in violation of the treaty, Lincoln
became a warrior. His company marched and counter marched
— ^feeding on the fat of the land — ^but could not see the Indians.
But the Union got the benefit of Lincoln's experience in mer
chandizing and in that war. It equipped him to manage vrith
brilliant success tbe business of the federal government, and at
the same time to maneuver three million warriors against the
South. The world has been assured a miUion times that he

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 289
saved the Union. But his panegyrists are not just to the firm
of Lineoln & Berry and to Black Hawk, to whose training Lin
coln's ability as a sa/vior was due.
He had three thriUs of the heart before it was calmed
by matrimony. His first love was Miss Anne Butledge — a fair,
fragile beauty. Whether they were ever plighted is a mooted
question. But she wasted away, and in 1835, with the Autumn
leaves, she perished. The second was Miss Mary Owen of Ken
tucky, to whom he thrice offered the crown, and who, like Cae
sar, thrice refused to wear it. Of her the brutal letter was
written by the rejected lover to Mrs. Browning. Miss Owen
was intellectual, was highly educated, and possessed much of
this world's lucre, of which Lincoln had none.
The third was Miss Mary E. Todd of Kentucky, whose lin
eage alone was a rich legacy. She was educated in a convent in
Kentucky, spoke French Uke a Parisian, and of her ancestors
in the maternal line two had been Goveriiors, and one Secretary
of the Na-vy under President Tyler. Her sister had married a
Mr. Ninian Edwards and they resided in Springfield, Illinois —
Lincoln's home. On a visit to her sister. Miss Mary and Lincoln
met. To shorten the story, Lincoln offered his hand and heart.
She could see nothing in him that evoked any responsive emo
tion. But after importunity for months by Lincoln and his
friends, she assented. The day for the wedding was appointed.
Mrs, Edwards went to the trouble and expense of renovating
home and furniture, A feast rich and bountiful was prepared.
Invitations went into Kentucky as well as through Springfield.
A minister was engaged, and the hour set for the joyous cere
mony. On the appointed night the feast was spread, the invited
guests assembled and the minister was promptly on hand. The
bride expectant sat with several selected bridesmaids in a room
separate from the guests, awaiting the hour appointed. The
happy hour struck, but the bridegroom had not arrived. Con
versation was resumed but it was spasmodic. The quarter after
was marked off by the hands on the dial, and the bridegroom
was stiU delinquent. Whispered surmises floated around the
room. ' ' He must be unavoidably detained ' '— ' ' Something very
unusual has occurred" — ^"It may be he has suddenly become
sick." Conversation languished. Time tolled off a haK-hour

290 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
— but the bridegroom did not relieve the tense anxiety. "Oh!
he'll be here soon" — "he's a man of the highest sense of honor.
Be patient." Who but a woman can Imow the emotions of
that bride expectant at that hour — ^wavering between faith and
doubt, hope and fear, shame and indignation? The tension
grew painful. An hour passed. Then the chivalry of man for
woman flamed up. Young men rushed to the street and, scat
tering, began a hot search for the culprit. They visited all
known haunts of the story-teller — inquired of aU passers-by —
and returned vrith imprecations to inform the bewildered as
semblage that they found no trace of the betrayer of the
betrothed.

CHAPTER XLI.
ABOUT LINCOLN'S PUBLIC RECORD, AND
A PURITAN ABOLITIONIST'S VIEW
OF PROPERTY AND TITLE.
The world, since the war of Abolition, has heard nothing but
praise of Lincoln. As "no man is perfect — no, not one," there
must be another side to this wonderful mortal. If there be —
and as biography is the base of all history — any acts or sayings
that can supplement what has been written and spoken of him
should be made a paii; of history. Audi alteram partem —
"hear the other side" — ^is a -wise maxim of the Romans, in
tended to establish justice. There is not much to be said that
is not praise — would there were none — ^but that little may be
instructive and iUuminating, though not acceptable^ to hero-
worshipers. Infatuation is an ailment difficult to cure. It
borders on another malady which prompted the vrisest of poets
to -write — ' ' Canst thounotnunister to a mind diseased ? ' ' Indeed,
when infatuation fastens on a Uving object, nothing can shake it
loose but a rude rebuff, or shock, by the object itself. As the
subject of this unbounded admiration has passed from earth
back to earth, there can be no rebuff — ^no shock. Rather, as
the tender roots of a near-by tree, seeking nurture, pierce the
new-turned mold to reach the inanimate dust it sheltered in
Ufe, and flourish by what they feed on, so this passion that
required Caesarian surgery by Death to give it birth, now
descends into the grave and hourly grows on the meager glory
it finds buried there. Without resort to records made by ful
some flatterers, or sincere adorers, or by the pestUent parasites
that feed on real or imaginary greatness, I shaU confine this
presentation of Lincoln to the public record made by himseK
and his friends. The deductions made therefrom must stand
or faU on their merits. The record no worshiper can be mad
enough to deny.

292 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE* SOUTH
Mr. Lincoln was a lawyer. He had studied the Constitution
of the United States. He was a close observer. He knew well
the political situation in the Union; the causes of sectional di
vision; the intense feeling on both sides. He knew the South
did not import negroes and make slaves of them. He knew
New England had begun that traffic and kept it up from 1636
far into the nineteenth century. If he read the history of Massa
chusetts, he knew that she, as a body politic, estabUshed the
slave trade for profit, and that she never repealed by statute,
after repeated attempts, negro slavery. Bom in 1809 he lived
through the entire period of sectional hostility brewed by slav
ery. He was 21 when the Hayne- Webster debate occurred. He
saw the rise of the anti-slavery movement — saw it take form-
was of age when Lovejoy, one of the first agitators, was mur
dered in Lincoln's own State — Illinois, He saw abolition so
cieties start and grow into thousands. He knew that the
Constitution recognized the negroes as personal property, and
provided that slaves escaped into free States should be deliv
ered to their owners. He knew of the "Underground Rail
road" — tbat it was used to aid thieves to carry the slaves to
free States and Canada. He knew the criminal laws and what
was defined as theft, and that men and women were engaged
in stealing slaves (personal property) and sending them into
Canada. He knew that act was theft and that the actors ("let
the galled jade wince") were thieves. Of these criminals
he, also, knew the Abolition Party was composed, and that they
were of his supporters when he was nominated and elected
President. He knew they were of the breed of New England
religious fanatics, and that religious fanatics believe, as did and
do the Puritans, that what they do is approved by God, and
they stop at no barriers and obey no law exept their own will.
He knew that, from the first Congress (1789) to 1860, thesj
fanatics petitioned Congress to abolish negro slavery, and that,
as he often said in his debates with Stephen A. Douglas, Con
gress had not the power to abolish, or in any wise to interfere
with slavery in the States. He was in Congresa m 1847-9 ami
heard these petitions read. In proof of the lawlessness and
murderous intent of these fanatics, he had before him the in-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 293
vasion of Virginia by John Brown and followers, to massacre
men, women and children, and to free their slaves.
With aU the enormities done in Kansas, and by Brown in
Kansas and Virginia; the many thousands of negroes stolen,
the avowed purpose of the Abolitionists to free the slaves in
aU the Southem States ; the statutes passed by eleven Northern
States to iiulUfy the statutes of Congress to carry into effect
the clause in the Constitution requiring escaped slaves to be de
Uvered to their owners — ^with all these, and much more too
numerous to tell, known by Lincoln, his ungovernable ambition
to rise from his humble beginning to the Presidency of the
United States, made him sink all consideration of justice and
right and humanity, and put his naine before a convention of
religious fanatics, of men who gloried in stealing negroes; of
men who had denounced the Constitution as "a covenant with
Death and an agreement vrith HeU," and who swore they would
not be controUed by the Constitution, as they had found a
"Higher Law" than that damnable paper.
No leaming is required to know the meaning of the word,
"mob," A child, seeing it, defines it by agitation, fear and
feeling of horror. This boastful land of Freedom, Liberty and
Law has been, to some extent, under mobocracy since the first
mob razed to the ground a market house in Boston, until the
adjournment of the last convention of Republicans in Chicago
that nominated President Wm, H, Taft for re-election. Mob
ocracy is the legitimate offspring of Puritanism. But we must
trace a mob to its development as it was when Lineoln, in 1860,
put himself at its head to lead it. For this we give Webster's
definition of Conspiracy:
1, "A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agree
ment between two or more persons to commit some crime in
concert," 2, "One who conspires; who engages in a plot to commit
a crime, particularly treason,"
As to what act, among many others, is revolution or treason, I
quote another great New England authority— another Webster,
named DanieL In reply to Calhoun in 1833, he said : "What
is revolution? Why, Sir, that is revolution which overturns,
or controls, or successfully resists the existing pubUc authority;

294 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
that which arrests the supreme authority, that which arrests
the supreme power." Again, he said : "An attempt by a State
to abrogate, annul, or nullify an act of Congress, or to arrest
its operation within her limits, is a direct usurpation of tbe
just power of the general government, and of the equal rights
of the States ; a plain violation of the Constitution, and a pro
ceeding essentially revolutionary in its character and
tendency." It were idle to cudgel the brain to phrase a better indict
ment of the horde of Abolitionists, Free-soUers and Revolution
ists, who in Northern legislatures passed laws "to resist, arrest,
and annul, within their States, the laws enacted by Congress"
to compel tbe rendition of fugitive slaves. What did they care
for laws which were "the supreme authority" in the Union?
What was an oath to them to support the Constitution? What?
They were acting in obedience to their "Higher Law" — ^the
same law negroes and other thieves obey when they start out
for a white man's henroost, or a bank, a horse, or a hog. What
did they care for the commandment "Thou shalt not steal?"
If the law of God could not hold them back from crime, of what
avail was man's law in every State in the Union, defining lar
ceny to be — "The wrongful and fraudulent taking and carry
ing away by any person of the personal property of another
with intent to steal the same?" With the impudence and de
fiance of law that mark the trail of the Puritans in England
and Holland, and their bloody tracks for near a century after
they set foot in America, they shout back at us — ^"What? A
negro, property? A human being — ^made in the image of his
Maker — a slave and property? There is no law for it! It is
contrary to our opinion. Our opinion is our law — ^the only law
we intend to obey — ^have ever obeyed. Our oath to support the
Constitution and laws of Congress is not binding on us. The
Constitution says nothing about negro slaves and property in
negro slaves. We have tbe same right to construe the Consti
tution that Congress has to construe it. Besides, that old papei*
is "a covenant vrith Death and an agreement -with HeU. Away
with it!"
Calhoun did not make a stronger argument in support of
Nullification than the above defiance persistently made by Puri-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 295
tan Abolitionists for forty years, on the hustings, on platforms,
in Northern pulpits, and in Congress, Here follows a wild
raging of these Puritan fanatics and Patriots, murdering thou
sands eaeh day "to preserve the Constitution!" Coffroth, a
member of Congress from Pennsylvania, had just said in a
speech on the Resolution before Congress in 1864 for adding a
13th amendment to the Constitution: "I care not whether slav
ery is retained or abolished by the people of the States in which
it exats — ^the only rightful authority. The question with me is,
has Congress the right to take from the people of the South
their property * * * Would it be less than stealing?" To
which the Puritan Abolitionist, Famworth, of Ohio, replied:
"What constitutes property? I know it is said by some gentle
men on the other side tbat what the statute makes property, is
property, I deny it! What 'vested right' has any man or State
m property in man? We of the North hold property, not by
virtue of statute law, but by virtue of enactments. Our property
consists in lands, chattels and things. Our property was made
property by Jehovah when He gave man dominion over it. But
nowhere did He give dominion of man over man. Our title ex
tends back to the foundation of the world. That constitutes
property ! There is wbere we get our title ! There is where we
get our 'vested rights' to property !"
Before resuming the line on Lincoln, I drop a few remarks
on this view of property and title to it, Mr, Famsworth, in the
froth of debate, evidently was not thinking of New England.
Her title to "land, chattels, and things" is not so ancient as that
of Famsworth.'s "we" — ^by which he, no doubt, meant the ''we,
the people" Daniel Webster was sole proprietor of by discovery
of them in tbe preamble to the Constitution. New England's
title to "land" did not reach back "to the foundation of the
world." It was acquired mainly by killing Indians. ,Her title
to "chattels and things" was acquired in various ways — some
things (which may include money) by smuggling, some by seU-
ihg in the West Indies, as'slaves, Indians captured in war ; some
by fines imposed on Quakers for not taking off their hats ; some
by forcing prisoners to work, under penalty, if they refused, of
sitting in the stocks ; some by tying them to a cart-tail and whip
ping their bare backs whUe they were dragged through three

296 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
towns; some by fines for failure to a'ttend "di-vine service" on
Sabbaths, there to suffer for two hours, listening to discourses
in monotone on infants in HeU, Salvation by Faith, Hell-fire
and Eternal Damnation. Her title to negro slaves, vrith which
she stocked the Southem colonies and States, did not date, far
ther back than 1638, She must have felt grossly insulted by the
charge, made by the Honorable Famsworth in open session of
the House of Congress, that she had no title to negroes she ran
down, bought vrith rum, and stole in Africa, and made slaves,
and, as soon the black cargo could reach tbe Western Con
tinent, added fraud to theft by announcing that she had
perfect title to the slaves, whereas she had none whatever, except
that of a buccaneer or pirate — that is, if the Honorable Fams
worth 's information about titles to "chattels and things" was as
thorough as his knowledge of what the Lord intended, when He
was laying "the foundation of the World," should be good
title to "land, chattels and things" in the Northern States.
The Honorable Famsworth of Ohio was so radical a Puritan
and Abolitionist as to forget that the title to the land his house
stood on, as a part of Ohio, was given by Virginia in 1787 to the
United States, As "we of the North" derived title from Jeho
vah, he had, probably, traced Ohio's title beyond that of Virginia,
If so, the next link, back, he found in James I, who gave the
^ land to Virginia, But he coidd not stop at the King, He must
trace her title — (what a laborious man that Famsworth was!)
Let us see what that man did to find out whether the title to his
"home, chattels and things" was perfect. He started to examine
the records under Queen Elizabeth— who was the last of the
Tudors, He then ran back through the reign of the House of
York, or the White Rose, then of the House of Lancaster, or the
Red Rose, He has now been at work through 159 years. Next
he took up the Plantagenets through eight reigns. That landed
him up against WUUam the Conqueror, when history records
there were many new deals in lands by robbing Peter to pay
Paul. But between Elizabeth and the Conqueror thousands of
titles bad been broken by breaking necks vrith ropes, and by
drawing and quartering. Some had faUen in by the "statute"
of Mortmain, or it might have been by "enactments"— a differ
ent process according to Mr, Famsworth; some by attainder, a

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 297
few by escheat; some by failure of inheritable blood; some by
prsemunire; others by "Treason!" "Rebellion!" "Conspir
acy!" — each the real, genuine, simon-pure article — ^none of that
miserable second-hand, hand-me-down shoddy stuff like that
the Union soldiers had to wear; not a base imitation "Rebellion
and Treason" the Southem Rebels and Traitors got up — so poor
a counterfeit that the "Nation" didn't think it good enough to
be hung or shot for. So the Nation just took up a small soldier
named Wirz and a poor old woman named Surratt and banged
them, thereby hanging the Southem Traitors and Rebels, just as
many thousands of brave, valiant Abolitionists fought and died
during the war — ^by substitute.
AU the foregoing methods of acquiring title to "land, chattels
and things, "besides many more, had to be examined and decided
on before going beyond WiUiam the Conqueror. But this un
daunted Puritan investigator went on through the rule of the
Saxons, then the Danes, then Anglo-Saxons, then the Saxons
alone, and back to JuUus Caesar, before Christ. That carried him
to Rome. There anybody but Hercules or Famsworth would have
thro-wn up the job, for he found there, after Rome had ruled
nearly the whole world for 1200 years, the same state of things
we have accomplished in vainly trying to rule ourselves only 124
years. That is, he foimd there a few grantees holding the land
throughout the einpire, as he found to be the case in this empire,
but he found miUions of grantors — ^too numerous to mention.
After verifying the title of "we in the North" to their land, as
Aeneas, it is said, founded Rome before Romulus and Remus
sucked the wolf, Famsworth had then to go to Troy and begin
to excavate, and read the runic or cuneiform bricks to trace his
title. He found, no doubt, the bUt of tbe sword vrith which
Pyrrhus hacked old King Priam into fish-bait; the spindle of
the chariot that dragged Hector aroimd the wall; Cassandra's
veU, that she wore when prophesying; the heel of Achilles that
received his death wound, and a few of the weary sighs Troilus
breathed "from the Trojan wall to the Grecian camp where Cres-
sid lay that night," Thence this explorer passed eastward, into
the shadows, first, then the tvrilight, the gloom, and then the
night that shrouded the earth a hundred miUion years after its
"foundation was laid," before he met the Lord and got

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 298
the title to "land, chattels and things" for "we of the North"
— ^negro slaves not being included. The most valuable result of
this research through so many miUion years is that he proves
his grandfathers, who warranted the title to the slaves they sold
to us of the South, to be arrant knaves, cheats and s-windlers.
Let us hope he ran himself into that hole vrithout seeing it. A
fanatic plunging on under such a head of steam as Famsworth
got up, so that he took "enactments" for tbe Decalogue,
couldn't tell a hole from a comet, and would take a negro for his
grandfather. What marvelous acumen these fanatics have "to sever and
divide a hair 'tvrixt north and northwest side," — ^to draw a line
wide as a guK between "statutes" and "enactments." This
fancied power is the ecstasy of madnes.s, after o'erleaping aU
barriers and restraints of law to establish order among men, and
becoming the confidant and spokesmen of God, and co-Directors
vrith God in governing His footstool. It is Puritanism, grim,
merciless, infallible, defiant, stamping down its pUghted faith
and honor, and standing triumphant upon them. Puritans sold
the slaves to the South under guaranty of title, and afterwards
pledged "their Uves, their fortunes and their sacred honor" in
maintaining and defending the IKe, liberty and property of aU
the colonies ; and again by signing and adopting the Constitution
tbat declared the title to slaves they had given, to be "double
sure." In an early chapter the Puritans' deficiency in reverence for
ancestry, indifference to their forbears of merited distinction,
was shown in the names given by them to counties and towns,
moimtains and rivers, inlets and bays, in their colonies and
States. This uncouthness and neglect was not an oversight. A
thousand acts, like links in a chain forged one at a time, re
peated through two centuries, are not done by mistake. Such
barbarous outward shapes and images are reflected by the mir
ror fixed by nature steadfast in the mind or spirit. And that
mirror has been a spiritual heirloom down from father to son
for many centuries— that insensibility— that hebetude to f amUy
pride — that disrespect for distinguished fathers and citizens.
Their fathers and grandfathers of the strictest Puritan sect
helped to frame the Constitution, and then adopted it as their

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 299
palladium. It was pronounced, the world over, man's -wisest
conception. But the chUdren of those wise and patriotic sires
rise up by millions and damn them as the authors of a writing
by which they entered into a covenant with Death and Hell, —
an anathema framed and hurled at their immortal shades by a
son of Puritans, and he stands honored by Puritans on a monu
ment in Boston.

CHAPTER XIJI.
LINCOLN AND THE CHICAGO CONVEN
TION THAT NOMINATED HIM IN 1860—
SEWARD, BEECHER, PARKER AND
OTHER ABOLITIONISTS AND
ANARCHISTS.
I return to speak directly of Lincoln, I was classifying the
lawless elements that nominated him for President, when I
thought it would not be time lost to accompany Famsworth in
his only attempt to find the Lord, I must ask indulgence for
applying plain Anglo-Saxon to those elements. It is not my
habit, nor my taste, but this occasion must be an exception. The
President of the Confederate States, their Generals, and the rank
and file, and aU who felt as they felt, have been slandered, ma
ligned, vilified, besides being branded as rebels and traitors, for
nekr fifty years in every country on the Earth. Men of educa
tion, by applying "rebels and traitors" to Southem men of all
classes, have t,augbt the ignorant, the malicious, and the -rile to
roll those words as sweet morsels on tbe tongue. There were no
rebels, no traitors, nor perjurers in the South. There were no
rebels in the North, but there were perjurers by the thousands,
traitors by the tens of thousands, thieves by the hundreds of
thousands and revolutionists by the millions. These are plain,
blimt, imvarnished words. They are used not from habit, or
choice, or desire. They are employed only because the paucity of
the English language offers no other words that can be enrolled
as substitutes ; because, in criminal pleadings, these words are of
ancient and highly honorable standing; and because Christ, the
supreme Master of adaptation, when he -wished to impress the
world with his conception of the enormity of certain sins, always
pressed into service words that gave the clearest idea of the sins,
words that needed no interpretation, Mid that the simplest mind
could understand.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 301
I left Lincoln at the Chicago Convention, made up of a motley
crew — men who, he knew, as lawyers, had sworn to support the
Constitution and laws enacted by Congress ; and who as legisla
tors, after being sworn again to support the Constitution, had
forthwith voted for a statute intended to "resist, annul and
nullify Acts of Congress" passed at the mandate of tbe Constitu
tion. These meni beyond quibble, were perjurers and revolution
ists. Again, Lincoln knew that he had supporters in that con
vention who were conspirators with the other men, and with
women and boys, who did tbe active work in stealing slaves and
speeding them to Canada, or any other hiding place. He often
said slaves were property. The raiders, and the operators of the
under-ground railroad, were as clearly thieves as men who steal
horses, hogs, or gold. And as aU conspirators are equally guilty
of the crime committed by one or more, he was supported in that
Convention by a gang of thieves. It was by the application of
the principle of law stated above that the court attempted to jus
tify the hanging of Mrs. Surratt for the killing of Lincoln by
John WUkes Booth. Tbe traitors were the men who joined tbe
federal army and made war on the States of their birth, homes,
and allegiance. This wUl be shown by the Law of Nations,
The foregoing covers tbe four classes — ^Perjurers, Revolu
tionists, Thieves and Traitors — ^who, except the last class, nomi
nated Abraham Lincoln for President, and whose characters and
crimes he knew. The law makes no distinctions in crime. It does
not caU a poor man who steals a loaf, a thief, and a rich man
who steals miUions an "appropriator." It does not call a poor
man who steals a coat, a thief, and a rich woman who "lifts" a
diamond a "kleptomaniac." It calls the man who steals what
the law of man describes to be personal property a thief, and
does not caU tbe man who ignores man's statute law and steals
the same property, a phUantbropist, a patriot, a hero ! It call^
the man who "whistles down the wind" the statute laws, and
defies the organic law of the government that protects bim, an
Anarchist, and denounces him as only fit for treason.
When Henry Ward Beecher took the two negro women —
slaves — ^in a carriage from Cincinnati into the woods between
midnight and da-wn to be sent to Canada, he was stealing ; he
was as complete a thief as K he had that night sneaked into a

802 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
farmer's lot and stolen and hid in the woods two sows. When
Theodore Parker, another of I^ew England's most holy pro-
claimers of God's command — "Thou shalt not steal"— to vile,
low, lawless sinners, received and hid away for months the two
slaves — WilUam and EUen Crafts — and then raised money for
their passage, and took them disguised to the ship and sent them
to Europe — ^he was a thief. He was a Puritan fanatic, a
clerical ruffian, before he became an avowed thief. It was he
and William EUery Chaiming,  Baker and a few
others, who kicked holes in their surplices, and then dragged
Christ from his triune seat in Heaven to the Earth, and made
him sit down by Confucius, Buddha, Socrates and Zoroaster,
When William H, Seward, with a genius for evil unsur
passed, announced bis discovery of "Higher Law" than the
Statutes of Congress, than decisions of the Supreme Court,
than the Constitution, be was a Revolutionist,^ in morals and
law a traitor; and, in fact, the boldest propagandist of multi
form crime — ^theft, treason and murder. He begat John Bro^wn,
who murdered men and boys as a hunter shoots wolves. He
sired that nest of ¦vipers — Thad Stevens, Ben Wade, John P.
Hale, and thousands more. He flyblow corruption a continent
-wide, that hatched a multitudinous winged brood with poison
ous sting — crawling by night, flying by day, and breeding as
they crawled, so numerous that, like the locusts of Egypt, they
eclipsed the land in gloom and despair for twenty years, and
swarming tumultuously above the Constitution, settled down
upon it, and extinguished its guiding, vital light. It is behind
this "Higher Law" these wreckers of statute law and the Con
stitution — yea, and of the RepubUc — seek refuge. WhUe they
find there a far higher order of society than they have ever
seen or enjoyed, still, there is one quality common to both the
humble refugees and the royal dweUers. That quality is
tyranny, despotism, unbridled oppression, for there repose the
tyi-ants and despots of all the ages. These refugees are there
ensconced, hugger-mugger— cheek by jowl— with the Thirty
Tyrants of Athens, with Dionysius of Syracuse with his "ear
of stone," with Catherine of Russia, Bloody Mary, and a legion
more. They, too, had their "Higher Law." It is tbe plea of
a tyrant when he wants money, dominion, pleasure, or blood.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 303
The tjTant AppiUs Claudius pleaded it when he lusted for the
beautKul Virginia, who only escaped him by the dagger of
her devoted father. Nero asserted it when he -wished "to rid
Rome" of his adoptive brother, his wKe and his mother, whom
he murdered. The man who defies law and pleads public
necessity, or the pubUe good, as Lincoln did, in .iustification
of his unlawful deeds is unfit for rule — ^is already a despot.
It is clear that Lincoln was nominated —
1st. By men, who, after swearing to support the Consti
tution and the laws of Congress, passed statutes to annul a
part of the Constitution, and two acts of Congress. They
were perjured — ^and Lincoln knew it.
2nd. By men who "resisted and annulled and defied the
Acts of Congress." They were Revolutionists and conspirators
—and Lincoln knew it.
3rd. By men who had been in a conspiracy to aid and
abet in the crime of stealing slaves — ^personal property. They
were conspirators and thieves — and Lincoln knew it. Revolu
tion is rebellion and those engaged in it are Revolutionists and
traitors. This, also, Lincoln knew.
These were the men Lincoln solicited to nominate and to
elect him President. These were the men who elected bim.
It is not intended to intimate that Lincoln had committed any
one of the four crimes his supporters had been guilty of. That
question wUl come up after his inauguration. It is only said
here that, knovring the criminality of the men in the conven
tion, he accepted the nomination tendered by them and put him
seK at their head as their leader. It is a significant fact, and
one to be borne in mind, tbat the anarchist who proclaimed
the traitors' creed that there was a "higher law" than the
Constitution and the statutes of Congress, was Lincoln's fore
most opponent for that nomination, and that Lincoln selected
that Anarchist for the highest position in his Cabinet — ^that of
Secretary of State. "Anarchist" is the only word that de
scribes hitn. The man who denies the binding authority on him of
the highest laws of his country, and that after he bad sworn time
and again to obey and to uphold those laws, is the man vriio
among aU ei-vilized peoples is known as an anarchist. Lincoln
knew that Seward proclaimed that new political treason, and
he knew it was the spirit and Ufe of anarchy.

304 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Again ; Seward started life as a teacher in Putnam County,
Georgia, where he became embittered against Southem people
because he was not received as his vanity and Puritan impu
dence coached hun to believe he shoiUd be. Probably there was
not a community in the South more cultured and refined than
that of Putnam County. This "Yankee school-teacher," by
nature uncouth and presuming, was considered as persona non
grata in that quite, gentle society, famous for strong men and
beautKul women. Seward left there with vengeance in his
heart and negro in his brain. From Lincoln's intimacy with
Seward, from 1847 to 1861, he knew Seward's social reception
in Georgia, and Seward's hostility to the South.
Again; Lincoln was not only an AboUtionist, but history
says he lectured on abolition in his State. Under a placid ex
terior he was ready to go to extreme lengths on anti-slavery.
In his debate with Stephen A. Douglas when running for the
United States Senate, he imagined a state of facts and stated
his fancies to be facts. For instance, he charged a conspiracy
hatched by Douglas, President Pierce, James Buchanan and
Chief Justice Taney, that the decision in the Dred Scott case
should be held up until the election for Pierce's successor
should occur in 1856. He had not the courage to call the names.
He supposed a house built by "Stephen, Franklin, James and
Roger" — the christened names of those gentlemen. He was so
hostile to that decision that he advocated in that debate a re
organization of the Supreme Court to get it reversed. He said:
"I have always hated slavery, I think, as much as any Aboli
tionist — ^I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet
about it," etc.
Lipcohi said he maintained that each State had the right to
do exactly as it pleased vrith all the concerns within that State
that interfered vrith the rights of no other State, and that the
general government, upon principle, has no right to interfere
vrith anything other than that general class of things that does
concern the whole. Slavery was that class of things which he
beUeved concemed the whole, that is, aU the States. He had
just said, in the same sentence — "I beUeve each individual is
naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself, and the fruit
of his labor." And in the next paragraph, speaking of slavery.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 306
he said — "this matter of keeping one-sixth of the population of
the whole Nation in a state of oppression and tyranny un-
equaUed in the world."
Replying to the charge made by Douglas that he would not
abide by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court,
Lincoln said: "Just so. We let this property (the slave, Dred
Scott) abide by the decision, but we vrill try to reverse that
decision. We mean to do what we can to have the Court decide
the other way. That is one thing we ("Abolitionists") mean
to try to do."

CHAPTER XLin.
SOMETHING OF THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
DEBATE— QUOTATIONS FROM LIN
COLN'S FIRST INAUGURAL
ADDRESS.
Douglas in one debate charged Lincoln vrith deception —
vrith "trying to fool the people" of Hlinois by making one
speech in the Northern end of the State and another altogether
different in the Southem, or "Egypt" — ^the Democratic por
tion. Douglas then read the platform of the Abolitionists,
pledging the AboUtionists to do many things, among them, to
repeal and entirely abrogate the Fugitive Slave Law, and
declaring that Congress had no power to pass such a law, that
"that power belonged to the States," and charged Lincoln
with standing on that platform. In the fifth joint debate
Lincoln said: "The negro was included in the Declaration of
Independence." He asserted many times that "this, country
coiUd not exist half free and haK slave," and, as he was an
AboUtionist and denounced slayery as "tyranny and oppres
sion unequaled in the world," and as he declared, further, that
this country could never be all-slave, we have no trouble in
deciding what was in his mind and heart when he took his
oath as President.
The tiny biography of Lincoln given by Douglas in their
first joint debate is not devoid of significance. "We were both
comparatively boys. I was a school-teacher in Winchester
(111.) and he was a flourishing grocery-keeper in Salem. He
was just as good at telling an anecdote as now. He could beat
any of the boys wrestling, or running a foot-race, in pitching
quoits, or tossing a copper; could rain more liquor than all the
boys of the tovm together, and the dignity and impartiaUty
with which he presided at a horse-race, or fist-fight, excited
the admiration of every boy that was present and par
ticipated."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 307
In the seventh joint-debate Douglas said — "Lincoln was in
Congress in 1847 while the Mexico-American War was on ; thus
he voted for Ashmun's Resolution declaring that war uncon
stitutional and unjust." Douglas then adds : "It is one thing
to be opposed to starting a war, and another and very different
thing to take sides with the enemy against your own country,
after war has commenced." It was on that Resolution that
Tom Corvrin of Ohio uttered the celebrated sentence — "The
Mexicans should welcome the soldiers of the United States with
hospitable hands to bloody graves."
Lincoln had boasted often that he was an "Old-Line Henry
Clay Whig" — a strong 'friend of Clay. In the seventh and last
debate Douglas said: "You have read the speech of Gen.
Singleton at Jacksonville" (during this joint debate). "He
charges that at a Whig caucus in 1847, held — during a conven
tion in this State — at the home of Lincoln's brother-in-law,
Lincoln proposed to throw Henry Clay overboard and take up
Gen. Taylor, and that in the National Convention in Phila
delphia of the Whig Party, Singleton met Lincoln there, the
bitter and deadly enemy of Clay ; that Lmcoln tried to keep
him (Singleton) out of the Convention because be insisted on
yotmg for Clay, and tbat Lincoln rejoiced with great joy over
the mangled remains of his friend, Henry Clay.
"When the Wilmot Proviso, tbat disturbed tbe peace of the
whole country until it shook the foimdation of the Republic
from center to circumference, was pending in Congress in
1848-9, Lincoln was in Congress, and is the man who, in con
nection with Seward, Chase, Giddings and other Abolitionists,
got up that strKe. And I have heard Lincoln boast that he
voted forty-two times for the Wilmot Proviso, and would bave
voted as many times more K he could."
I have thus gone back to Lmcoln 's youth, traced him m
early manhood from his first appearance in pubUc life as a
member of the Legislature of Illinois m 1836, then his election
to Congress in 1846, and then through his debates with Douglas
in 1858, and to his election as President m 1860. This ancient
and forgotten lore is tedious reading, but it throws a calcium
Ught on the acts of the man from the date when he as Presi-
' dent swore to support the Constitution, to the hour when he

308 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
was summoned to Judgment "-with all his imperfections on his
head." The reader who studies the brief record just given
above, with the thought of a student and knowledge of the
human heart — "deceitful above aU things," even when not
"desperately wicked;" who knows the perilous brink on which
fanaticism confidently takes its stand, when, having tumed
its back on aU human laws, it imagines it can hear the voice
of God, and enter into His counsels, and steal the secrets of His
Providence, wiU be better prepared to interpret the meaning
of much that is veUed in the secret alphabet of thoughts
unexpressed. During the last and furious debate, or row, in Congress in
1860 before the American Republic went down, Lincoln sat low
with his ears to the ground. When any proposition was made
looking to a compromise, he telegraphed to representatives
from Illinois not to agree to anything that could possibly add
one more foot of slave territory to the Union. This is further
proof of Lincoln's hostility to slavery, K any more than his
own declaration in the joint debate were needed. But it shows
another important fact — ^his purpose was to arrest the growth
of the South and make all new States free, and when the
fortieth State should be admitted, the free States, having a
three-fourths' majority, could and would add an amendment
to the Constitution abolishing negro slavery. I bring forward
in this connection his declaration quoted above in the debate
-with Douglas, to--wit: "The general government, upon prin
ciple, has no right to interfere with anything in the States
other than that general class of things that does concern the
whole" — ^that is, all the States; and as he had asserted that
Slavery concemed all the States, and we have here the key to his
secret purpose. At that time (1858), he did not believe Seces
sion would occur. He believed, as did all, that the Democrats
would continue in power indefinitely. This -view is made still
clearer when we recall the fury the Abolitionists exhibited
when Webster in his speech of March 7th, 1850, said K Texas
should by vote of a majority of her citizens divide her terri
tory into five States, as was agreed by Congress, when Texas
was admitted into the Union, that she might do, he would vote
for the admission of the extra four States. That and his declara-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 809
tion in the same speech that he could vote for a bill to require
surrender to the master of fugitive slaves, was Webster's
political death-warrant.
In the last debate Douglas said: "Lincoln says that he
looks forward to a time wben slavery shall be abolished every
where. I look forward to a time wben each State shall be al
lowed to do as it pleases, I care more for the principle of self-
government than I do for all the negroes in Christendom, I
would not endanger the perpetuity of the Union, I would not
blot out the great inalienable rights of the white men, for all
the negroes that ever existed, Mr, Lincoln went on to tell you
that he does not desire to interfere vrith slavery in the States
where it exists, nor does his Party, I expected him to say that
down here, ' ' (Lower part of Illinois ) , " Let me ask him, then,
how he expects to put slavery in tbe course of ultimate extinc
tion everywhere, if he does not intend to interfere with it in
the States where it exists? He vrill extinguish slavery in tbe
States as the French General exterminatd the Algerians when
he smoked them out. He is going to extinguish slavery by sur-
roimding the slave States — ^hemming in the slaves and starving
thein out of existence as you smoke a fox out of his hole, Mr,
Lincoln makes out that line of policy and appeals to the moral
sense of justice and to the Christian feeling to sustain him.
He says any man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the
attitude of the King who claims to govern by Divine Right."
The last utterance of Douglas in this last debate tells, indi
rectly, the real cause of the war — ^the persistent interference
by the Puritans with the domestic concerns of Southern States.
He said: "If we will only live up to this great fundamental
principle of non-interference, there will be peace between the
North and the South. The only remedy and safety is that we
shaU stand by the Constitution as our Fathers made it; obey
the laws as they are passed while they stand the proper test;
and sustain the decisions of the Supreme Court and the consti
tuted authorities;"
We have heard Douglas charge Lincoln to his face as one of
four conspirators who concocted the Wilmot Proviso to renew
sectional strife and hate. They were Wm. H. Seward, Salmon
P, Chase of Ohio, Joshua Giddings of Ohio, and Wilmot of

310 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Pennsylvania, who fathered the Resolution in the House, Gid
dings was .a rabid Abolitionist. So was Chase. Wilmot had no
distinction, good or bad, except as a hater of the Bouth. He
was selected as the mouth-piece. Lincoln, when driven into
the corner, or back to the rope, by Douglas in every debate,
protested that he did not intend to interfere with slavery in the
States; but he would not let it go into any territory, or new
State. We shall see how near his acts after he got office follow
his protestations when pleading for office.
Let us see how, after swearing to support and defend the
Constitution, he started off to support it. The Latins had a wise
maxim — "a man is known by the company he keeps," There
IS another common sense rule tbat every prudent man since men
have done business always adopts. If he desires to fell a tree
he uses a sharp axe and not a plow. If be would plow he does
not use an axe. If he would buUd a house he does not employ
a bar-keeper. If in power and he would govern with -wisdom,
justice ,and mercy, he does not caU to his side as aids men of
lawless character. If elected by one section of a country di
vided into two hostile sections, he will not, if a wise and just
ruler, select men as bis advisers and to execute his orders, who
hate the people of the other section. If it is his purpose to obey
the laws, organic and statutory, and judicial decisions of the
highest authority, would he choose an Anarchist as his first
choice among seven advisers to be selected by him, and appoint
that Anarchist to tbe highest and ,most responsible of aU offices
within his power? This interrogatory carries its own answer.
No man not a lunatic would answer "yes" to it.
What did Lincoln do as soon as he swore to support the
Constitution? He scanned the whole country, and, of all men
of the thousands fit to be Secretary of State, he picked out the
bitterest hater of tbe South and the man who, sitting in the
United States Senate by authority of the Constitution — ^his only
warrant for wearing the toga of & Senator — proclaimed him
self to be above that Constitution, above the statutes of Con
gress which he was sitting there io assist in passing, and above
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Govemment whose
commission he was acting under. All this record of Wm. H.
Seward Lincoln had known for years. And -with that knowl
edge he selected that Anarchist as his chief counsellor — ^the only

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 311
one of his Cabinet whose position and duties required him to
deal with foreign nations, and with the South he so bitterly
despised. Lincoln's next choice was one of the five conspirators, who,
as Douglas — ^pointing his finger at Lincoln as one of the five —
charged, bad devised the Wilmot Proviso "to keep up the
strife" between the two sections. This man was Salmon P.
Chase — ^Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury — ^the man who was
to counsel Lincoln and Congress how best to raise money to
subdue the Confederate States. The other five members of his
Cabinet were pliant under Liincoln's hand — ready to do his
bidding without murmur, and not of sufficient force to merit
further notice. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War, was noted
as having great wealth acquired as Indian agent in the West.
With these arrows in bis quiver, Lincoln started on his Divine
mission of love, mercy, justice and obedience to law.
The counsellors and servitors were appointed on the 5th of
March — ^the day foUo-wing Lincoln's inauguration. Cameron,
and Gideon WeUes, Secretary of the Navy, began at once to
get ready the army and the navy "to preserve the Union"
which had been rent by Webster in 1830, and "to uphold the
Constitution and the laws" tbat bad been violated in every way
fanatics could devise for twenty-five years ; that bad been vio
lated, cursed, damned by negro thieves ; tbat had been violated
by perjury committed by Conspirators and Revolutionists in
eleven States who passed "Personal Liberty Laws" to resist
and nuUKy the clause in the Constitution giving owners of
fugitive slaves the right and means to recover them. Lincoln
had given these Cabinet puppets full orders in his Inaugural —
in language of unmistakable meaning. He said :
"I consider, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the
Union is unbroken, and, to the extent of my ability, I shall
take care, as tbe Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me,
that the laws of the Union shall be faithfully executed in all
the States. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but
only as the declared purpose of the Union, that it vrill CON
STITUTIONALLY defend and maintain il^seK. In doing this
there need be no bloodshed, or violence, and there shall be none
unless it is forced upon the National Authority. The power
confided to me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the

312 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE ^^SOUTH
property and places belonging to the Govemment, and to col
lect the duties and imports, but beyond what may be necessary
for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force
against or among the people anywhere. Plainly, the central
idea of Secession is the essence of Anarchy!"
"High on a throne of royal state, which far
Outshone the wealth of Ormus and of Ind,
Satan exalted sat, by merit raised
To that bad eminence ; and, from despair
Thus high uplifted beyond hope, aspires
Beyond thus high,"
Why did not this palaverer, this palterer with us in a double
sense, have the courage and truth to exclaim, in words that told
bis purpose — ^"My sentence is for open war!'* There by his
side sat Moloch, the sceptered Anarchist, "the strongest and
the fiercest spirit of all;" why not boldly launch his hidden
thunderbolt, and cry — "Turn loose the dogs of war?"
"Secession is the very essence of Anarchy!" The Southem
States have committed that first act of Anarchy, The Consti
tution and the laws denounce it. I am here to enforce the laws.
I intend to take and hold the forts the anarchists now hold. I
intend to enforce the laws in the States occupied by the anar
chists, and to collect therein duties and customs. If the anar
chists keep quiet while I march with an army to enforce the
laws, there, will be no invasion — ^there will be no bloodshed.
Such was the blindness of a people given over to believe a
lie — such their rage from fear of losing the wealth wrung from
the South by "Protection" — such the depth of sordidness and
selfishness to which avarice had plunged that people — such the
barbarity that had smothered humanity and filled their hearts
with wormwood and gall — ^that that declaration of war in
Pecksniff's protestation of love and benevolence, was applauded
to the very echo as the outpouring of a great heart almost
bursting with sorrow and compassion.

CHAPTER XLIV.
LINCOLN BECOMES A USUHPER AND
V INAUGURATES WAR.
Horace Greeley, in his select coUection of calumnies and
Ues caUed "The American Conflict," said that Lincoln con
sidered his Inaugural "as a resistless proffering of the olive-
branch to the South. ' ' Logan, in his mausoleum, puts Lincoln
to tossing sleepless on his bed that night, wondering how bis
"Inaugural offering the olive-branch would be received by the
wayward, wUful, passionate South."
If a neighbor from whom Lincoln had stolen systematically
for years, had moved away to save what he had left and to live
in peace, and Lincoln had followed and told him "if you don't
move back so I can continue to steal from you, I'll go to your
home and drag you back, but I will not kill you, unless you
resist," that tyrant would caU his threat an offering of the
oUve-branch of peace. The two Secretaries of War and Navy
set to work vigorously the day they were appointed to get
soldiers and ships ready to convey to the South their master's
"oUve-branch of peace,"
On the 12th day of March — eight days after the olive-
branch had been proffered to the Confederate States — Martin
J. Crawford, of Georgia, and John Forsyth, of Alabama, two
of the Commissioners sent by the Confederate States Govern
ment bearing authority to make an agreement with the
National Govemment looking to an amicable settlement of all
National questions between the two governments, were in
Washington. They addressed a note to Seward, Sec-'
reta:Fy of State, requesting him to see Lincoln and to ask
what time it would be agreeable to him to give them an inter
view to talk over the business of their mission. On March
15th, under instractions of Lincoln, the Anarchist sent to the
-Confederate Commissioners the following as a finality. En
closing Lincoln's Inaugural in which he declared his purpose
to mvade tbe Southern States "to enforce the laws," the
Anarchist wrote — as if talking to the air:
"A simple reference to the Inaugural will satisfy those
gentlemen" (not even mentioning their names) "that the Secre-

314 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
tary of State, guided by the principles therein announced, is
prevented altogether from admitting or assuming that the
States referred to by them, have, in law or in fact, vrithdrawn
from the Federal Union, or that they could do so in the maimer
described by Messrs. Forsyth and Crawford, or in any other
manner than with the consent and concert of the People of the
United States, to be given through a National Convention to be
assembled in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution
of the United States. Of course the Secretary of State caimot
act on the assumption, or in any way admit, that the so-caUed
Confederate States constitute a Foreign Power, vrith whom
diplomatic relations ought to be established."
To this slap in the face and kick down the steps by Lincoln's
bead Anarchist, Forsyth and Crawford, and A. B. Roman, their
associate commissioner, repUed on the 9th of AprU. I quote the
most important part of the reply :
"The truth of history requires that it should distinctly
appear upon the record that the undersigned did not ask the
Government of the United States to recognize the independence
of the Confederate States. They only asked audience to
adjust, in a spirit of amity and peace, tbe new relations spring
ing from a mauKest and accomplished revolution in the Gov
emment of the late Federal Union. Your refusal to entertain
those overturns for a peaceful solution; the active naval and
miUtary preparation of this Government and a formal notice to
the Commanding General of the Confederate forces in the
harbor of Charleston that the President intends to provision
Fort Sumter by forcible means, K necessary, are viewed by the
undersigned, and can only be received by the world, as a
declaration of war against the Confederate States, for the
President of the United States knows tbat Fort Sumter cannot
be provisioned vrithout the effusion of blood. Tbe under
signed, in behalf of their Government and people, accept
the gage of battle thus thrown down to them; and, appeal
ing to God and the judgment of mankind for the righteousness
of their cause, the people of the Confederate States will defend
their liberties to the last against this flagrant and open attempt
at their subjugation to sectional power."
I do not purpose to give even a sketch of what followed the
supercilious treatment by Lincoln and his chief AnaiTcbist of

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 815
those messengers bearing the true olive-branch. That bloody
field is not within my purview. I am giving the other side of
the North's martyred saint, I charge to him the responsibility
for the destruction of the RepubUc founded in 1787, and the
rise on its rains of a despotism. He was America's first despot,
but he will not be the only and the last. To this view a sep
arate chapter will be devoted.
By nature Lincoln was a gawk and a boor. His chief deUght
fiowed from dirty stories. In the crude West when be was
growing up, as in all pioneer society, chastity of speech was
not popular. Lincoln's -vulgarity and quick perception of in
congruities made him a welcome addition to circles where such
stories were retailed and enjoyed. Judges delighted in doffing
judicial dignity — such as it was in theory — and to Usten to
the erstwhile raU-spUtter and boatman. He was strong before
juries because he seasoned and spiced argument with anecdote.
Thus he rose in popularity, and in 1836 was sent to tbe Legis
lature. That taste of brief authority stimulated ambition to
go higher. In 1847 he was elected to the House of Congress,
There he saw the giants of the Republic — ^rubbed against them
— measured them — and vanity persuaded him be was at least
their equal. There, too, he became engulfed in sectional parti
sanship, and as he "always hated slavery," his hatred en
veloped the master -with the slave. His desire to free the slaves
took fire and blazed into a consuming ambition. His aspira
tion seized on the Senate, and he made the run with Douglas
in 1858. Events came and went rapidly. The compromise of
1850 intensified his negrophilism; the sectional warfare in
"Bleeding Kansas" fired his heart. JoEn Brown's raid into
Virginia inspired his Party vrith hope and new energy, and
Lincoln mounted the popular wave and, to the surprise of him
seK and the Abolitionists, he rode into the haven he had long
steered his craft to reach. Ignorant of the Law of Nations and
desirous to display his knowledge of the Constitution, he
tracked behind Webster in his exposition in his debates vrith
Hayne and Calhoun, and composed the Inaugural in which,
"like the scurvy politician, he saw things that were not." He
saw States stripped of sovereignty, and that sovereignty in his
hands as President of a Nation. And thus deluded he deter-

816 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
mined to make himself immortal as the Emancipator of four
million negro slaves.
Lincoln knew the spirit of the South. He knew how the
Puritans had, for fifty years, irritated its people by theft of
slaves and inciting them to insurrection. He knew the people
would never again brook interference with their domestic af
fairs, and be knew that when he contemptuously insulted the
South by refusing to even speak to ber peace Commissioners,
he had dared the South to mortal combat. But, bent on freeing
the slaves, and knowing tbat the mob of Abolitionists at his
back would demand of him to do what they elected bim to do,
or, on failure to obey, he would fall a victim to their rage, he
prepared for war. Let us follow him to catch a glimpse of the
man as the real Lincoln flashed out now and then during the
four years of torment that racked his soul. It is safe to say
that from the first battle of Bull Run to the surrender of Gen
eral Lee, Lincoln, of all men in America, was the most miserable
— as he deserved to be. But more of that later on. To free
the slaves was Lincoln's primary purpose, but he knew he could
not rally the North on that issue. He, therefore, raised the
cry— "SAVE THE UNION!" "The flag has been fired on!"''
"Rally around it to Save tbe Union!" On the 15th of AprU,
just six weeks after be as President swore to support the Con
stitution, he made a call on the Governors of all the States to
send to bim 75,000 soldiers. For what? He had declared in
bis Inaugural he would only enforce the laws "to collect duties
and customs*' in the seceded Smes. Did he need 75,000 armed ,
men to do that? Hdd he tried to collect any duties and customs
in the seceded States and failed because he had been resisted
by armed force ? He bad not made an attempt.
Biit more and worse. He said "Secession was anarchy" —
that the people of the South had violated the Constitution, and
he intended to uphold it — ^to preserve it, Tbat bond of the
Union says Congress alone has power "to raise and support
armies." Congress had not voted to raise an army. There was
no Congress for four months after be wag inaugurated, and
would not have been until the first Monday in December,
1861, if he had not called an extra session. There was no
appropriation to support 75,000, pr even ten, soldiers. He
had no more authority to raise an army than he had when he

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 317
was a boat hand. Why did he not convene the Members elect
the day after "the flag had been fired on," and let Congress
say what should be done ? Why did be delay calling Congress
in extra session until July 4th? Why arm and equip 75,000
troops — driU them — send them into Virginia and command
them to march on Richmond before Congress met? Only 17
days passed after Congress convened before the battle of Bull
Run, He had invaded Virginia in May. Ah! the wily fox!
with an Anarchist his chief adviser. He would not trust Con
gress, ' ' Tbe Northern heart must be fired ! " "I intend to free
the negroes, I must foment a situation to prevent Congress
from attempting any more compromises such as were proposed
only four days before I was inaugurated, ' '
Logan, in his mausoleum — "Tbe Great Conspiracy" — says:
"By tbe end of May not only had the ranks of the regular
Union army been filled and largely added to, but 42,000 addi
tional volunteers had been called out by President Lincoln,
The Southem ports bad been blockaded, Washington City, and
its suburbs, had, during May, become a vast armed camp ; the
Potomac River had been crossed, and the Virginia hills, includ
ing Arlington Heights, had been occupied and fortified by
Union troops ; the yoimg and gallant Col, Ellsworth had been
kiUed by a Virginia Rebel while pulling down a Rebel flag in
Alexandria, and Gen. Benjamin F. Butler was in command of
Fortress Monroe, and had, by an inspiration, solved one of the
knottiest points confronting our armies — that is, Butler bad
confiscated as property escaped slaves vritbin his lines, as ' con
traband of war.' " Here is testimony from one of Lincoln's
adorers, to prove what be had done without authority of Con
gress, or of the Constitution. Logan's evidence was not
necessary. He only recited history "known of all men," But
Logan was no lawyer. He did not, could not, "see he was con
demning to infamy his idol. He probably knew that a King,
a Monarch, or other Ruler, who seizes power beyond his lawful
reach, is a Usurper, and a Usurper is a tyrant. Every student
of the federal Constitution knows tbat the President has noth
ing to do with declaring war. He is commander-in-chief of the
army and na^vy, and wben war is declared, he takes command.
Yes, Lincoln intended to have war begun. He must move
as the fanatics demanded, so that, when Congress should organ-

318 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
ize, he could Say in substance — "I started into Virginia to exe
cute the laws you made ; to collect the revenue and customs at
Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Jackson^viUe,
Mobile, New Orleans and Galveston, and I was met by thou
sands of Rebels and Anarchists, and they told me not to come.
So I called for a posse comitatus of 117,000 men to make sure
my mission, I armed and drilled them and organized them into
battalions, regiments, brigades and corps, and they are now
ready to attack the anarchists. What are you going to do
about it? Will you like cowards back out, and leave those
brave men at the mercy of these anarchists? Will you have
Washington taken and burnt?'' Lincoln knew he had usurped
a power of Congress, and that be was a Usurper, He may not
have branded himseK a tyrant, but that is what the law defines
a Usurper to be. But be and bis Anarchist-adviser knew that
the course he took was the only way to insure civil war, and, if
successful, to free the negroes, Lincoln's ambition was to be
the Great Emancipator, Seward's was to get revenge on the
South — its men .and women — and to destroy their refined civUi-
zation that rebuffed him in Georgia,
After the cry, "On to Richmond," had rrmg through the
North a year from the rout of Lincoln's posse comitatus a.t BuU
Run, Lincoln "saw another sight," His devotion to the negro
had been chilled by the horrors of the battle-field. That blood
was on his hands. He bad usurped the war power of Congress
and precipitated a gigantic struggle, to which be -m-ps not equal
in his Generals or his troops. He was bombarded from Maine
to Oregon. Hope did not elevate nor "joy brighten bis crest,"
Mothers whose sons had been kiUed and left on the battle-field
to be clawed by carrion crows and gnawed by worms were
raising the cry of Niobe widows— their husbands dead and
homes desolated— were shrieking sleep from the Usurper's pil-
lo-vY, Editors were cursing Tiim, Horace Greeley in August,
1862, madly assaulted bim in tbe Tribune, and bad it placed
under his nose, Tn brief, the Great Emancipator found his
negro pet too heavy and dropped him. The sole agonizing cry
was — " Save the Union ! "
In proof of his desertion of tbe slaves, I quote his own words.
The negroes who for a half century have had the same Lincoln
rabies his white Northern worshipers have, and been parading

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 319
streets in aU Southem cities and towns on "Emancipation
Day," should remember these words. In answer to Greeley's
attack Lincoln replied by letter, August 22nd, 1862, and among
other things, said : "If I could save the Union without freeing
any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some
and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do
about slavery and tbe colored race, I do because I believe it
helps to save the Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because
I do not believe it would help to save the Union," It thus ap
pears by his own confession that Lincoln did not care whether
the negroes were set free or kept in slavery. If the Union
could be saved by freeing the slaves be would try to free them.
If the Union could not be saved if tbe slaves were freed, he
said, "I am willing that they shall be held in slavery," This
letter to Greeley is on Page 433-434 of Logan's book— "The
Great Conspiracy," This is tbe world's greatest philanthropist
—according to tbe verdict of tbe worshipers of tbe tvrin heroes
— ^Lincoln and John Brown.
We have now to consider another phase of this inimortal
mortal. The EngUsh language has ben ransacked for superla
tives, and the superlatives have been stretched into super-
superlatives by windbroken orators, and by a procession as
long as the issue of Banquo, of neophyte historians, to raise
Lincoln to a height just below the angels in praise of his
gentleness, charity, and humanity. Again I prefer Lincoln as
a witness to what was in his heart, to all these interminable
strings hanging to his coat-tail to gain fame by reflection, or
even to those semi- judicious among the bUnd pagan idolaters,
who through a rKt of tbe darkness can see a spot on tbe
burning surface of this last sun "risen on mid-noon,"
On September 13, 1862, a deputation from all religious de
nominations of Chicago presented to Lincoln a Memorial for,
the immediate issue by him of a proclamation of Emancipation
of all the slaves in the South, He made a long verbose speech
in which this language was used :
"I do not want to issue a document that the whole world
, wUl see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope's bull
against the Comet, Now tell me, if you please, what possible ,
result of good would. foUow the issuing of such a Proclamation

820 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
as you desire? Understand, I raise no objection to it on
legal or Constitutional ground, for, as Commander-in-Chief of
the Army and Navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to
take any measure which may best subdue the enemy ; NOR DO
I URGE OBJECTIONS OF A MORAL NATURE IN VIEW OF
THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF INSURRECTION
AND MASSACRE AT THE SOUTH. I view this matter as a
practical war measure, to be decided on according to the
advantage or disadvantage it may offer for the suppression
of the RebelUon!"
We have long heard of the Devil's cloven foot, but not
before have we seen it. Humanity! cry his worshippers!
Humanity! The hanging of Quakers for a nonessential diff
erence of opinion was, indeed, humane compared to the savag
ery of tbe heart that harbored that fiendish hate. The mouth
of the adder is joy to its victim beside this inhuman tongue.
No cieeping thing that on its belly crawls has God endowed
with less compassion than had this simular of -virtue. The
massacre of the Huguenots was mercy to tbe fate this monster
planned for the South. The savage baffled in warfare to con
quer his enemy on the field, who sneaks at dead of night, and
fires the prairie and bums what he caimot subdue, is a bene
factor compared to the paleface who, beaten on the field, de
termines to have the wives and daughters of his foes raped
by savages, and, then, men, women and babes butchered in
their burning homes ! Is this a ' ' rebel 's ' ' — an ' ' anarchist 's ' ' —
a traitor's" -vituperation of a hero, a patroit, a saint? Let
Lincoln answer the charge. It must stand or faU by his own
words. A short notice of the alarming situation Lincoln had made
by -violating his oath and usurping the war power of Congress,
vriU link his name with Pope Innocent HI, vrith the Duke of
Alva and the St. Domingo Massacre, whenever it is read or
spoken among civilized people of coming ages. We have seen
that he usurped the power to make war and to raise armies
and rushed to immortalize his name. The battle of Bull Run
stunned him. In every important battle from that day (July
21, 1861) to the issue of his Pope's BuU — ^Emancipation Proc
lamation — defeat after defeat staggered and bewUdered him.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 821
He began early in 1862 to pray for help. He was pelted vrith
the vilest epithets by his own dupes, and was dodging and
pleading for relief. After cudgeling his brain for months, he
hit on the expedient of Emancipation. He knew be had no
power as President to touch slavery. He had so declared. But
he beUeved that a Proclamation of Freedom to all slaves within
the Conf ederate States would arouse the slaves to insurrection
and massacre, and, K they once rose up and began to bum.
rape and kiU, the Confederate soldiers would, in defiance of
aU military rales, orders and commands, rush to their homes
and protect their vrives, children and property ; that desertion
would paralyze the Confederate Government, and his march
to conquest woiUd be a holiday parade.
Had he considered the consequence of insurrection and
massacre he beUeved his Proclamation would inevitably pro
duce? He is the best witness. Let him speak. I said he
had contemplated this fiendish measure for months. Replying to
the Chicago preachers (as quoted above, Sept. 13, 1862), his
opening sentence is this: "The subject presented in the
Memorial is one upon which I have thought much for weeks
past, and I may even say for months." He then, after a speech
covering two pages, said, as quoted above: "Understand, I
raise no objections against it (the Proclamation) on legal or
Constitutional groimds, for, as Commander-in-chief of the Army
and Navy, in time of war, I suppose I have the right to take
any measure which may best subdue the enemy, NOR DO I
URGE OBJECTIONS OF A MORAL NATURE IN VIEW OP
POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF ISSURRECTION AND
MASSACRE AT THE SOUTH."
Cffisar had his Bratus ! Charles the First his CromweU, and
Abraham Lincoln his John Wilkes Booth !
In his Inaugural, March 4th, 1861, after branding the seces
sionists as anarchists; after proclaiming that there would be
no invasion of the South; that he only uitended to coUect duties
and customs, and to occupy federal property, he, in conclusion,
said: "I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends.
We must not be enemies. Though passion may have stramed,
it must not break our bonds of affection." This is a leaf from
the "olive-branch of peace"— so like the Mohammedan's "take

322 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
the Koran, or I wiU take your Ufe." "Desert your colors 1
Break up your govemment by anarchists ! Go to your homes !
Hold State Conventions and abolish slavery — ^that 'worst
tyranny and despotism in the world' — and we will be friends
I am your President and Ruler!" This was the voice of
Peace !
Douglas, in the joint debates, charged Lincoln -with trickery
— ^with deceit — in making a speech in Northern lUinois to catch
Democrats. Here he played the role of hypocrite. He was
playing to the galleries and to the audience of Europe. He
had Uved through the entire period of slavery agitation — ^knew
the Puritans began it — had seen it grow Uke a prarie on fire —
knew that fanatics started it and would never ^top perscution
of the South until slavery was abolished and that Secession
was the only escape from that persecution. Yet, he seized on
the word "passion" to fix blame on the South — to make it
appear that the North was so innocent of wrong-doing as to be
amazed at Secession — so astounded as to see nothing but an
archy as the motive. That he knew was dishonest, deceitful
ahd false. This view of Lincoln is fuUy presented in the chap
ter on Secession.

CHAPTER XLV.
LINCOLN ON "UNIVERSAL LAW" AND
THE "PERPETUITY" OF THE UNION.
In his inaugural address Mr. Lincoln said: "I hold that, in
contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the
Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity, implied, if not
expressed, is the fundamental law of aU National (Jovern-
ments. It is safe to say that no Govemment proper ever had
a proArision in its organic law for its own termination. ' '
What "Universal Law" is, Lineoln did not teU us. It might
have aided the public to understand what he was talking about.
If he meant law of the Universe, be should have included in his
Inaugural a cyclopedia of the laws that control every thing in
and out of the Universe. This suggestion assumes that he could
produce a cyclopedia to which the thousand scientists who
have advocated different theories, had finally agreed. If he
had not soared so lofty, and bad used plain common-sense lan
guage, and had said, even standing tip-toe: "I hold tbat there
are a few laws that are recognized by the wisest men as imi-
yersal, and I give as an instance the law that every nation, and
State, is sovereign, free and independent, and perpetual," he
could, then, bave announced that, this being a universal law,
must be a "fundamental law" of all Nations, and our National
Govemment being a Nation, as he assumed, therefore "it nec
essarily and logically follows that our National government is
sovereign, free, independent and perpetual." There was not
an Abolitionist, Nationalist, or Puritan fanatic, among the
"thirty thousand" hearers (John A, Logan's figures) who
would not have applauded him three times. Tbe syllogism, or
sillygism, would bs^ve been overwhelming but for one little trifle
which logicians have classed among beggars by calling it "beg
ging the question ' ' — ^to-wit : ' ' Our National Govemment being
a Nation," It is a pity that a Uttle thing like tbat should be
aUowed to spoil such a magnificent cerebral structure, and it
buUt, too, by the greatest man (up North) of all the ages.

324 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

We bave here the sophism on which aU Nationalists defend
that brutal, lawless war — to-wit: that "the federal government
was a Nation" and was in authority over all the States, Web
ster did not so contend, but he sowed the seed that bore that
poisonous, deadly, fruit,. In the same paragraph Lincoln says :
' ' Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National
Constitution and the Union will endure forever — it being im
possible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for
in the instrament itself,"
Nothing built by man can endure forever. But if the Puri
tan fanatics had obeyed "the express provisions of the Consti
tution;" had not stolen slaves — property guaranteed by the
Constitution; had not incited the slaves to insurrection; K the
legislators of eleven States had not committed treason by pass
ing statutes to defy the fugitive slave laws; had not deified
John Brown for invading Virginia to aid slaves to murder their
masters; and had not, otherwise, made life in the Union unen
durable, the eleven States would not have seceded, and the
Union would bave endured, perhaps, fifty years longer.
But, says Lincoln, "the Union, by Universal Law and the
Constitution, — is perpetual — ^it being impossible to destroy it ex
cept by some action not provided for in the instrument itseK,"
Lincoln had one quality that helps any man to succeed — con
fidence in himself. He "speaks as one having authority,'-' A
man with less assurance would have omitted the word "not"
before the word "provided." In tbe debate -with Calhoun,
Webster admitted that three-fourths of the States, acting by
authority of the Constitution to amend it, might repeal it,
Webster then proceeded to show why they would not destroy
it — ^not to show they could not destroy it. But Lincoln was and
is a far greater man up North than Webster; while, down
South, although we are not quite such "traitors" as to say out
loud — "Hyperion to a Satyr," we can not help being, in leisure
moments, somewhat classicaT in our reminiscences, Lincoln
had not the shadow of a doubt of tbe perpetuity of the Union,
He announces that the States in the Southem Confederacy were
never out of the Union, "because it is perpetual," The South,
after Secession, never contended that there was not a Union.
The federal govemment was left intact in every Department, 1

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 825
The only change caused by Secession was in the number of
States, In tbat view, Lincoln's assertion of perpetuity is cor
rect — ^that is, in theory. To prove that the Union is perpetual
he calls down from the stand his veiled, nebulous, amorphous
witness, "Universal Law," and as he found his second witness,
"the Constitution" — ^whose statement no man would doubt —
was deaf and dumb, he introduced four other "reliable" wit
nesses whose age alone evoked veneration, but who (except tbe
last) were not present wben the Constitution was made, and
knew nothing about it. The first is ' ' Tbe Articles of Associa
tion" (1774); the second was "The Declaration of Independ
ence" (1776) ; the third was "Tbe Articles of Confederation"
(1777) ; and tbe fourth the Preamble to the Constitution —
Webster's main witness in 1833. Tbe last should have been
ruled out on the ground of being a "professional witness" —
always on the side of despotism, I quote Lincoln's own words :
"Descending from these general principles, we find the
proposition tbat, in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual,
confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is
much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by
the Articles of Association in 1774, It was matured and con
tinued in tbe Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was
further matured, and the faith of all tbe then thirteen States
expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by
the Articles of Confederation, in 1777; and, finally, in 1787,
one of tbe declared objects for ordaining and establishing the
Constitution was 'to form a more perfect Union.' But if de?
straction of tbe Union by one, or by a part only, of the States,
be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before, the
Constitution having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It fol
lows, from these vie^ivs, that no State, upon its own mere
motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; tbat Resolves and
Ordinances to tbat effect, are legally void; and that acts of
violence within any State, or States, against the authority of
the United States, are msurrectionary, or revolutionary, accord
ing to circumstances."
To discuss seriously these "propositions" of Lincoln sug
gests criticism of the action of country boys riding corn-stalk
horses around the ring after the circus is gone, or of a novice,
who, whUe lecturing, experiments with hydrogen and oxygen

326 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
to show how they make a union, and gets his head blown off.
But to business : The Articles of Association made by the col
onies in 1774 make one of the four links in Lincoln's chain of
evidence to prove that the Union of the thirteen States — sov
ereigns each and all — is perpetual, — cannot lawfuUy be broken
up or dissolved for any reason or cause, except by unanimous
agreement of all the States. "Therefore "if twelve States in
1789 bad agreed to tear up the Constitution, and Rhode Island
had said "No;" little Rhode Island would have been Empress
of the United States.
Lincoln says : "The Union was matured and continued in the
Declaration of Independence in 1776." If the Union was "ma
tured" why did those meddling numskulls, Washington, Ham
ilton, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and others, keep on tinkering
at it — fooling with it — especially as they had continued it
"forever" after its "maturity?" Could not those old pundits
tell the difference between the egg they had been "setting on"
for two years and the chick after it was hatched? Why did
they continue to "set" from 1776 to 1787? What a pity that
Lincoln was born too late. Had he come saUing along in 1778
loaded to the gunwales with his universal knowledge of "Uni
versal Law," he would have told those fool "setters" to get
off the nest, or they'd "set" themselves to death — as the
chicken had been hatched two years ago and had b^pu in busi
ness at least a year.
It is in order to cross examine these two -witnesses, as Lineobi
does not let us know what they testKy. He made an ex parte
—"within chambers" — examination, and then takes the stand
and testified to what he understood his witnesses to say. In
other wordS; he acts as examiner and then "enters up judg
ment," and on that decision he proceeded to shoot down a haK
million American citizens — sparing neither age nor sex. It
must be borne in mind that we now enter upon an examination
of the law established by and binding on the thirteen States
when they formed the Union. I have quoted from Lincoln's
Inaugural his entire argument to prove the States intended the
Union to be "perpetual" — "exist forever — and, therefore, no
State can secede." From that fact (perpetuity) he deduces

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 827
a number of coroUaries which, in his judgment, necessarily
foUow, such as: —
First : ' ' Plainly, the central idea of Secession is the essence
of anarchy." "I therefore consider, in view of the Constitu
tion and the laws, that the Union is unbroken," — all whieh
have no probative value on the main question, because they are
only sound after the fundamental question of perpetuity shall
have been settled beyond any doubt. Should he fail to establish
his first proposition, then another corollary not among his must
foUow, and that is — ^he must lie "forever" in the tomb, con
structed by History, with Tamerlane, Genghis Kahn, Julius
Caesar, and the Duke of Alva.
Second: "The caption of the Declaration of Independence
is evidence, K not proof, of the perpetuity of theXUnion ! ' ' The
Declaration was made "by the Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled," July 4th, 1776, After
a few words preliminary, it says: "We hold these truths to
be seK-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights;
that among these (rights) are Ufe, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness." Do these truths tend to prove perpetuity of
the Union? Admit that the caption above be true — ^that the
States were then united and were in a Congress assembled —
does it prove that there was a perpetual Union between the
States? The writing that united the States is the best and,
indeed, the only evidence of what they agreed on. That'
writing Lincoln does not produce. But, so far, the Declaration
is a bad vritness for Lincoln, who, as plaintiff, must prove his
case. The quotation — ^"We hold these truths," et cetera, states
exactly the inaUenable rights of every human being in a state
of nature, and of the, hundred or more writers declaring what
are the Laws of Nations, every one, vrithout' variance of a
word, declares that the Law of Nations is foimded on the law
of Nature, and that every Nation is sovereign, free and inde
pendent; that among their rights are "Ufe, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness;" that every State is a complete Nation;
their powers, rights, privUeges and immunities are "inalien
able, immutable and indivisible." So that, even if the caption
is proof of a Union of the States, it was a Union of sovereign.

328 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
free and independent, each vested before the Union with
powers, rights, privileges and immunities "inalienable, immut
able and indivisible." Lincoln ought to have "coached" that
vritness before he put it on the stand, or, rather, he should not
have examined his witness behind a door, in the dark, then
told it to go so far a subpoena could not reach it, and then
have come into court and testified as true what his witness
refused to say !
One of Lincoln's proofs of perpetuity of the Union is this:
"It is safe to assert that no Govemment proper ever had a
provision in its organic law for its own termination." Here
is a jumble of words and a juggle vrith words such as Web
ster used when speaking of the Constitution and the govem
ment, the States and the Union, as convertible terms. "No
Government proper" * * ,* "in its organic law." What
does he mean? In one sense he is correct, in another he is
trying "to fool all the people all the time." If he speaks of
the federal govemment (and evidently he does) he names one
that is not a "govemment proper;" he assumes as true the
thing he is trying to prove. In 1789 it was appointed the rep
resentative, the agent, of thirteen Governments proper, or sov
ereign States. If he had declared that no State, no Nation,
ever provided for its termination, he would have -told the truth.
For no Sovereign, such as is a State, or Nation, was ever
organized with a -view to its own destruction, late or soon.
To avoid description of a State or Nation he substituted "gov
ernment proper" (borrowed from Webster) "to fool aU the
people," and applied that phrase to the federal government
which was organized under the Constitution — that "organic
law" which provides in express terms that three-fourths of tha
States can amend (not alone as Taft would amend or revise
the tariff law by piling on), but by adding to, taking from,
or even withdrawing from its agent all powers "delegated"
to it by its written authority to act for its principals — ^the
sovereign States.
We continue the cross-examination of the hearsay evidence
of the -witness that Lincoln swore to as trae. The remainder
of the Declaration, down to the last paragraph, is an indict
ment contaming about fifty counts agamst Kmg George III. In

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 829
conclusion it reads : ' ' The Representatives of the United States
of America in General Congress assembled • * * by au
thority of the good people of these Colonies solemnly publish
and declare that these United Colonies (not States), are and
of right ought to be free and independent States * * *;
and that as free and independent States they have full power
to levy war, conclude peace, contract alUances, establish com
merce, and to do aU other acts and things which independent
States may of right do." i
This witness gets worse. It did not hear Lincoln's hear
say testimony. It blurts out, without any respect for the Abo
litionists' President, and calls bis United States "United Colo
nies" — and says they are and ought to be free and independent
States, and that they have full power — as United States?
No; but as independent States, to levy war, conclude peace,
contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts
and things which independent States may of right do. This
document was intended to be what it is called — a Declaration
of Independence of Great Britain, but it testifies to facts that
explode Lincoln's "Union that is much older than tbe Consti
tution." First, that United Colonies made that Declaration.
There were no States in a Umon ! or those Representatives did
not know it. The "Caption" that reads "United States" is
no part of the Declaration. Webster tried to make tbe pre
amble a part of the Constitution, when he fled and took sanc
tuary in the preamble to escape the blows Calhoun showered
on his head with the Law of Nations. Lincoln here attempts
the^ame trick. Both faUed, and yet both "fooled the people."
Webster, unintentionally, raised a mob made up of Abolition
ists, Freesoilers, negro-thieves, fanatics, sans-culottes ; men
with rabies — caused by even the mention of "Constitution,"
and unsexed women, — which Lincoln in 1860 led to victory at
the polls, and to destruction of the Republic by war,
A few words more on the Declaration as evidence of "The
Union older than the Constitution," It says, — "and to do all
other acts and things ifvbicb Free and Independent States can
of right do." Was that said of States united under a compact?
No ! It means tbat ' ' each State, as a Nation ' ' can of right do. "
Under tbe Constitution, each State has delegated to its com-

330 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

SOU^

mon agent the exercise of its natural right "to levy War, con
clude Peace, contract Alliances, and establish Commerce," but
these acts are a small part oi "aU the acts" and things a State
or Nation can do, and not one of which can the States united
do. A State holds the franchise, regulates the conduct of citi
zens, marriage, divorce, adjudicates titles to land, establishes
police regulations, schools, municipalities, and a thousand other
acts which the United States cannot do. It is clear that the
words, "and to do all other acts and things which Independent
States can of right do," were spoken of a sovereign imtram-
meled by alliance in any form with one or more other sover
eigns. Thus, the Declaration, when given free speech and
allowed to speak for itself, turns against the party who per
verted its meaning, and gives positive evidence against "the
Union older than the Constitution."
The third witness is "The Articles of Confederation in
1778." If Lincoln bad started -with these ^A.rticles as Webster
did, instead of harking back to 1774 for "the Association,"
and to 1776 for the Declaration of Independence,, his ease
would not be so utterly bottomless. For those Articles of
Confederation say the Union established by them "shall be
perpetual." But Article I call the Union a confederation, and
Article IT is as follows: "Each State retains its sovereignty,
freedom and independence; and every power, jurisdiction,
and right which is not by this confederation expressly dele
gated to the United States in Congress ajssembled." Note the
fact tbat a Congress of delegates was to exercise aU the powers
delegated. There was no President — ^no Senate — ^no Judiciary
provided for. The fourth witness is : "To form a more perfect
Union." One said it should be perpetual. The Constitution
omits that. One said no alterations could be made unless all
the legislatures agreed, etc., etc.
Article III reads: "The said States (still colonies) hereby
severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other
for their common defense, the security of their liberties • * •
binding themselves to assist each other against aU force offered
• * * on account of religion, sovereignty, trade," ete.
Article V "For the more convenient management of the
general interests of the United States, delegates shall be an
nually appointed by each State every year, with a power re-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 331
served to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them,
at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead
for the remainder of the year," Here is the modem doctrine
of "Recall"— 134 years ago.
Article XIH, referring to all the Articles, reads: "Nor
shaU any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of
them unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the
United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures
of every State."
This evidence is to show, first, that the colonies formed a
Confederation and styled it "The United States of America"
(Article I) ; second, that they said the confederacy should be
perpetual; third, that eaeh State remained sovereign, free and
independent (Article II) ; fourth, that tbe confederacy was
only, "a league of friendship" (Article III). The delegates
intended this agreement to continue forever — as they say "per-.
petual" four times^ Of what probative value is this evidence
to establish tbe two propositions that "The Union of 1787 is
much older than the Constitution, and is perpetual?"
Lincoln asserts tbat there were three Unions before The
Union — (the Declaration of Independence being one Union)
and, therefore, they must be a part of, or links in, a chain that
ends in the Union of 1787, and as one (the Confederation) con
tains the word "perpetual," therefore, tbe last link iii the chain
forged in 1787 (The Union) must be perpetual.

CHAPTER XLVL
LINCOLN'S LEARNING AS A LAWYER
TESTED— HIS CONTRADICTORY
POSITIONS.
Lincoln's admirers — ^indeed, worshipers — ^proclaim that he
was a great lawyer, and, as a statesman — a perfect wonder. If
he was, he knew all the miles that every court in England has
held to be inviolable when used in construing instruments in
writing of every kind, ranging from commercial contracts,
deeds, wills, conventions, compacts, up to treaties. If he was a
great lawyer he knew "the Law of Nations," and, of course,
the powers, exemptions, rights, etc, of a Sovereign, If he was
not a passably good lawyer, we can understand why he as
serted the two propositions quoted in tbe preceding chapter,
to be true. If he was, however, a great lawyer, he was not
sincere, not honest in an assertion that is denied by the unKorm
decisions of all courts in England for a thousand years, and
by every American court since 1800, and by "the Law of
Nations." Let us test bis learning — to decide whether he knew
the plainest rules for construing written instruments, and we
can then judge whether he was a great lawyer, or, like Web
ster, had silenced conscience to play traitor to Truth, Wor
shipers may adore, sycophants may flatter, scribblers may seek
honor and glory by basting their names to bis — all may rank
him above Augustine, Marcus Aurelius, Washington and Jef
ferson, but they cannot by vain words smother the light of
Truth — for "the eternal years of God are hers."
If Lincoln was asserting that the Union of 1787 was older
than the Constitution because one, or two, or more Unions had
preceded it, be was asserting that which would upset and re
verse all rules for construing not only all legal documents but
all writings of every kind. If he used the historical fact that
two Unions had been formed before the Union of 1787, to prove
that the last Union was and is perpetual, because that word is
in the first and not in the secpnd of the two preceding Unions,

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 33^
he was either ignorant of not only tbe civil law but of the Law
of Nations, or he was dishonest to the length of playing his
ambition and safety against the life of tbe Republic. Let us
assume he was honest, and test bis knowledge of law.
Chief Justice Eyre, in the great ease of Marryatt v. Wilson,
having before bim the treaty between England and the United
States, which he bad to construe, stated the rules to be applied
in these words : ' ' We are to construe this treaty as we would
construe any other instrument, public or private; we are
to collect from the nature of tbe subject, from the words
and the context, tbe true intent and meaning of the contract
ing parties, whether they be A and B or happen to be two
independent States." See 1st Bosanguet and Puller, pages
436-439 ; also tbe United States vs. Arredondo et al, 6 Peters'
S. C. Rep. 610. These decisions announced no new law. It
was then venerable from age, and it was in and controling the
thirteen colonies, and was law in 1787, and was law wben
Lincoln reached out over the Universe and dragged in that
nebulous "Universal Law," and the Declaration of Independ
ence and tbe "Articles of Association" and of tbe "CoiKeder
ation," to find what the Constitution means.
One of the "perpetual" rules is, tbat any writing that
contains no ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence, must be con
strued by its own language. In terms of the law — ^"it speaks
for itself, and no other shall speak for it." No man has ever
lived who was demagogue enough to suggest any ambiguity in
the Constitution of 1787. Another "perpetual" rule, based on
the foregoing rule is, tbat no word shall be imported from any
source to interpret any writing in which there is no ambiguity.
Another rale is, tbat no Judge shaU ever permit any constrac-
tion of an unambiguous writing that gives to it a meaning
different from that clearly set forth by the parties who made
it. Another rule is, tbat Courts will never change a contract,
however burdensome it may be to one of the parties who made
"it. Another rale is, that a writing without ambiguity must be
constraed to contain no more and no less than the parties who
made it intended to say and to be bound by. Other rules estab
Ushed by the highest authority known among men — Sovereign
Nations and States— wiU be given when we take up another
contention of Lineoln.

834 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
The absurdity of citing the Declaration of Independence as
one of four Unions between the States has already been shown
in part. In 1776 tbe war was on. The thirteen separate col
onies had united their troops under Washington to conquer the
British armies. They sought aid from France, and would ac
cept it from any nation, and to get aid they decided to teU the
world their cause was just, by stating the tyranny of Great
Britain, After framing their indictment, they declared that
they, therefore, "ought to be free" and asserted that they were
"free and independent States" — and not one State, or Nation,
Lincoln declared that action formed a Union, Not a paragraph,
or line, or word, stating tbe terms to bind them — ^not the
shadow of any form of government — ^nothing agreed on — ^noth
ing even proposed — but, nevertheless, Lincoln says they formed
a Union "older than the Constitution,"
By the same logic (?) if, in bis rail-splitting days, bears
had invaded the sheepfolds and piggeries of himself and neigh
bors, and they had agreed to make common cause against the
whole Bruin race; and after they bad gathered together, duly
armed with flintlocks, cob-pipes and pikes, Lincoln had mounted
a stump, or rail-pile, and proceeded to indict the entire Bruin
nation, including all cubs, and had set out in forty counts the
barbarities, the cruelties, the lawlessness, the injustice, of their
neighbors in the swamps, who sneak forth at dead of night,
"wben slumber's chain had bound bim," and against all civU
ized warfare, and against "Universal Law" and the Laws of
Nations, had chawed up bis fattest pigs and his innocent lambs,
including Mary's; had turned over the wash-tub and splashed
soap-suds in Towser's one eye, and put him out of the fight, had
made a Rump-Parliament of old Brindle by biting off her taU,
and the neighbors had then Resolved that they bad the right
to be free men and by the holy Hocus-Pocus they were free and
independent sovereigns — right there and then one of Lincoln's
perpetual Unions would have been formed.
Because the words "the Union shaU be perpetual" are in
the "Confederation," Lincoln draws the conclusion that the
Union of 1787 is perpetual. To get this end he over-rides two
of the plainest and orthodox rules for construing all writings.
He selects one word from a former contract between the same
parties, and attempts to graft it on another contract between

. TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 335
them made nine years later. This no law known to civilized
man permits. His attempt is as odious to the Law, to con
science, and to all just men as is an ex post facto law — such as
the Puritans practiced on Quakers by making laws after arrest
to cover tbe offense charged.
But, if it were possible for any rough-riding over civil law
to be worse, he, next, surpasses that defence of law, Tbat is,
he attempts to incorporate a word in the contract, or compact,
between the States, tbat would make the Union indissoluble
except by successful revolution — thus adding to the contract
another Article, or paragraph of which the States made no
mention. Two odious vices are covered up in this insidious
desperate effort to justKy tbe war he intended to begin. The
first is his attempt to make the States agree to a fact — a condi
tion — ^they omitted to mention, or bint at ; and the second is, by
that word to change a RepubUc made by thirteen States, into a
Nation — a consolidated Nation — in which the federal govern
ment would be the Nation, and the States would be reduced to
dependencies, forever bound to it whatever might be its tyran
nies, and whatever might be the injustice and oppression, not
only done by tbe federal govemment, and by a combination of
States against other States, but also by lawless citizens of cer
tain States to citizens of one or more other States by acts over
whieh the head Nation at Washington could not take jurisdic
tion for prevention, or redress. Those wrongs tbat could thus
be done and were done will be presented in tbe Chapter on
Secession. Lincoln assumes tbat as the word "perpetual" was in the
Article of Confederation four times, it was omitted from tbe
Constitution by oversight of the deputies, and by the States in
sovereign convention that adopted it. It was not possible by law
to get that word in the Constitution in any other way. He says
it is there by impUcation. If the Constitution could not be
made effective without tbe word "perpeual," the courts might
hold that as tbe Colonies were so emphatic for perpetuity as to
say "perpetual" four times, it would not be a stretch of author
ity in order to save the Constitution from faUure, to construe
it as Lincoln contended. But, as the Constitution is considered
as the nearest to perfection of all man's works, it is idle to dweU

336 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
on the hypothesis of oversight. Still, let us see whether there
is any possible reason to imagine that the delegates of 1787 had
in mind the word perpetual or its equivalent.
The Confederation was formed in 1777, during the war of
the Revolution, There were no States, There were thirteen
Colonies fighting for life. Technically every soldier was a
traitor. The Colonies assumed the title of States, but they
knew they were not — and could not be unless they whipped
Great Britain, The pall of doubt covered the land. The
leaders fought with ropes around their necks — ^Washington
the first to bang, if defeated. He was complaining at the con
duct of some of the Colonies. He wanted men and money.
There was no bead — ^no organization. Patriotism was his
main support. The story has been rehearsed a thousand times.
Under that condition the Colonies sent delegates to Phila
delphia to form a government. They were novices at that
work. They committed plenary power to a Congress, It was
Executive, Legislative, and, in some respects. Judicial, Their
work was botched, as events proved. As they were doubtful of
the result of the war, some feared defection. The New Eng
land colonies were coquetting with the British — Washington
complained that some were trading with the enemy. Two
counties, Worcester and Hampshire, send deputies to Sir Guy
Carlton, British General, to know on what terms Great Britain
would receive them. The delegates felt much as men besieged,
fearing that some would desert to the foe. Therefore they
tried to bind every man to stand fast, and, hence, they said this
agreement is "a league of friendship vrith each other for their
common defense, tbe security of their Uberties, binding them
selves to assist each other against all force, or attacks made
on ,tbem, or any of them," etc. etc. And they kept saying this
league "must be perpetual," Why say that four times? There
is no other reason than trepidation. And the Colonies readily
adopted the "league of friendship," It is needless to say, this
league proved to be of little use to the Colonies.
In 1787 — what a change! The Colonies had ripened into
thirteen States — each a sovereign — as much as Great Britain.
The league wagged , along — each State attending to its o-wn
affairs. International complications arose. Statesmen saw

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 337
that the league was impotent, and that another form of gov
ernment had to be org£|,nized, to get rid of that stupid Con
federation, It is a significant fact that of the delegates sent
by the States to form a Constitutipn in 1787, but three of the
forty-eight sent to form tbe Confederation in 1777 — only nine
years before — ^were included. Why? Because new ideas of
govemment bad been matured. The States being sovereign
the statesmen wanted a government founded on principles of
sovereignty, and tbe State sent deputies to Philadelphia who
knew the Law that governs Nations, and, of course, the po-wers,
rights, etc, of a Nation. Those statemen knew that Nations
never enter into a compact, or treaty tbat contains a stipula
tion that they shall be bound together forever. Such a bargain
is not made except when some very weak nation surrenders
itself to the control of a strong neighboring nation for protec
tion, and it, thereby, loses its position of a sovereign.
For this reason, and others of prudence on the part of
some of the States, taught by the conduct of other States while
colonies and after independence, the "perpetual" clause in the
Confederation found no favor. The latter had this provision :
"Nor shaU any alteration at any time hereafter (i, e, in the
"forever") be made in any of these (the Articles) unless such
alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States
(colonies then), and be afterwards confirmed by the legislature
of each State," The sovereign States in 1787 said the Con
stitution can be amended by addition, or subtraction, without
limit, at any time, at the will of three-fourths of the States,
These two clauses Ulustrate tbe difference between tbe ideas of
government as expressed by timid colonies struggling for
liberty and IKe, and by sovereign States that knew their powers
and rights, and that they could not, if they would, grant even
one of them, without destroying their sovereignty.
It wiU be edifying to make a record just here of the diff
erent positions taken by Lincoln during that undefined contest
between tbe Southem Confederacy and the combined Northern
States during the four years ending in 1865, By so doing we
get a good view of Lincoln's ignorance of law. We also get
further insight into his lawlessness. We have seen his persistent
endeavor to protect his name and fame by insisting that he

838 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
was only trying to enforce the laws of Congress in the Southem
States. He called the soldiers of the South "insurgents." He
said they were in "rebelUon," and his only purpose was to
suppress the "rebellion." He proclaimed that he was trying
to support and defend the Constitution, In both cases — ^that is,
in suppressing an "insurrection" and supporting the Consti
tution, he was acting only as President, There was no war!
No! indeed! If there had been a war, be would have been
"Commander-in^jhief of the armies and tbe Navy." No State
was out of tbe Union — that was impossible ! Therefore, he was
not waging War,
Now let's take another view of this law-abiding patriot,
this learned lawyer and wonderful statesman. We bave seen
that in May, 1862, the officers and crew of a Confederate pri
vateer captured by a federal blockader were "pirates" ani
Lincoln was about to bang them, but some British statesmen
and lawyers taught him some law — ^that those men were not
pirates. He thus learned the difference between pirates and
belligerents. Again: In September, 1862, he issued bis Emancipation
bull. He was not in a war ! He was only trying to compel some
"insurgents" to obey the. laws. He bad said a hundred times
that Congress bad no power to interfere with slavery. Where
did he get that power? Every power be could exercise was
given by the Constitution. And the assumption of any other
power was rank usurpation and tbe act of a tyrant — a despot.
Yet, he was not making war — ^he was upholding tbe Constitu
tion, Again: He was not making war, but, eight days before he
issued the Emancipation bull, in open violation of the Consti
tution, be said to a delegation of preachers from Chicago who
called on him to urge him to issue that Emancipation bull :
"Understand, I raise no objection against it on legal or
constitutional grounds, for, as Commander-in-Chief of the army
and navy in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any
measure which may best subdue the Enemy! I view this mat
ter (tbe Proclamation of Emancipation) as a practical war
measure!" This lawyer and statesman who swore a few
months befpre to support the Constitution, has now discovered

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 389
¦  — -' ¦¦¦ ¦¦ ¦  » 
that he was Commander-in-Chief of an army and navy, actually
engaged in a War! More than tbat his "Insurgents" bad
grown to be "the Enemy," Who and what is "the enemy?"
Vattel and other publicists teU us — "The enemy is he with
whom a nation is at open war. A public enemy forms claims
against us, or rejects ours, and maintains his real or pretended
rights by force of arms," Lincoln had passed the duty of sup
porting tbe Constitution, No "legal or constitutional ground"
bothered bim. He was engaged in a big war, and, therefore, he
"supposed" he had tbe right, not as President enforcing the
laws on "insurgents," but as Commander-in-Chief of millions
of men engaged in a terrible war with an "Enemy," to take any
measure that might best aid to conquer the Enemy!"
Again: Tn 1863, some "Unconditional Union" men in Illi
nois invited Lincoln, through their spokesman, J, C, Conklin ^,
to attend a mass meeting in Springfield, TU, Tn his long letter
to Conkling, who had told Lincoln his Emancipation Procla
mation was unconstitutional, be used these words: "You say
it is unconstitutional. T think differently, I thing the Con
stitution invests its Commander-in-chief with tbe law of war in
time of war. Tbe most that can be said, if so much, is that
slaves are property. Is there — ^bas there ever been — any ques
tion that by tbe law of war, property both of enemies and
friends may be taken when needed? And is it not needed
wherever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy? Annies, ibe
world over, destroy enemies' property when they cannot use
it, CivUized belUgerents do aU in their power to help them
selves, or hurt tbe enemy, except a few things regarded as bar
barous or cruel. Among the exceptions are the massacre of
vanquished foes and non-combatants, male and female." He
then, in a letter of near five octavo pages, proceeds to talk of
the "rebellion"— "the rebels"— and says— "The emancipation
poUcy and tbe use of the colored troops constituted the heaviest
blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and one at least of these im
portant successes could not have been achieved where it was,
but for the aid of black soldiers."
First, there is nothing but an "insurrection;" then, that
sweUs into a rebelUon; and this grows to be a war. Second, he,
as President, must obey the Constitution by enforcmg the laws

340 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
to collect customs and duties in the Southern ports. But he
finds there is an ''insurrection" in the way. He organizes
a police force of 117,000 men to assist the U. S. marshals to
collect the duties. He then discovers that "rebellion" is going
on. Then, bis "pirates" rise to the dignity of "belligerents."
Next, the belligerents are discovered to be a "pubUc enemy"
and the "rebellion" has swollen until it explodes into a War.
He then resorts to the rales under which "civilized belliger
ents" (that is, nations) conduct war — one of which is the right
to destroy the Enemy's property.
He denied in the debate with Douglas that one man, under
God's law, could hold another man as property, but to hurt
the Enemy, he now discovers that the slaves in the South are
property. So, in order "to hurt the Enemy" be resorts to the
law of war between Nations, to destroy tbe enemy's property,
which he proceeds to destroy by making them soldiers to shoot
down their masters — the Enemy. And be finds bis power and
right to destroy this class of property in tbe Constitution,
which he often declared gave no power to Congress nor to the
President to free the slaves. In his first Inaugural, speaking
to the South, he said: "Tn your bands, my dissatisfied feUow-
countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of CivU
War." So that, by his o-wn declaration, if Secession was ef
fected, or, as he would say, was attempted, there would be
"Civil War," and he, of course, would be tbe aggressor.
But, in fact and under the Law of Nations, that butchery
was not a civil war, nor a rebellion, nor an insurrection. It was
a war between the free States and the slave States; between
eleven nations in confederation and twenty-two other nations in
confederation. This has no bearing on tbe absurdities and con
tradictions by Lincoln; but it is stated in answer to his own
statement that the contest was a "Civil War." We are con
sidering his attempt to shield himself by caUing tbe war an
insurrection, or rebellion, and we accept bis contention to show
his infamy and bratality in the methods he adopted to sup
press an "insurrection."

CHAPTER XLVIL
THE LATIN MAXIM, "FACIT PER ALIUM
FACIT PER SE," APPLIED TO LINCOLN.
Among the many good qualities Lincoln's worshipers,
through post-mortem examination, bave discovered is his heart,
which they qpitomise under the endearing salutation to his
shades of "Honest Old Abe." Another quality — of his head —
was overlooked by the sympathetic autopsists. It is his skill
as a thimble-rigger. The writer claims no credit for tbe dis
covery, for it Ues on the surface of the current of his life and
can be seen by all except the blind. When Lincoln started into
Virginia with his Grand Army of the Republic, tbe ball under
the thimble was marked "Insurrection." When be decided
to issue his Emancipation Proclamation, he lifted the thimble
and the same ball was labelled "War." When he invaded
Virginia, the baU under the thimble had on it — "only doing
my duty to enforce the laws," but when he lifted the thimble
the identical ball read — "I am waging war under the rules of
war that govern Nations." When he decided to issue his Proc
lamation tbe ball under his thimble was inscribed— "Nations at
war bave the right to destroy the enemy's property," but
when he raised the thimble there stood the destroyed prop
erty in blue unKorms, vrith guns, ammunition and haversacks,
ready to kill their masters — ^"the enemy." No wonder is it that
throughout the war he was cursed and damned by even his
backers — the Abolutionists ! As he protested in all his writings,
speeches, and talks during tbe four years, that he was only
"suppressing an insurrection," we shall get a clear view of
his humanity, justice, sincerity and knowledge of law, by a
brief review of bis methods of effecting his purpose.
It is one of the Laws of Nations that the head of an army,
whether King, Emperor or President of a republic, is respon
sible for what his subordinate officers do in the prosecution of a
war. Tbe latin maxim — facit per alium facit per se, — what

342 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH _
 ;  \  —
one does through another, he himseK does^^appUes to the
commander-in-chief of an army. Hence the acts of Lincoln's
Generals were in law his own. An instance is found during
Lincoln's "insurrection" that proves his recognition of that
law. His Major General, David Hunter, whose military depart
ment embraced Georgia, South Carolina and Florida, issued a
General Order, May 9th, 1862, at Hilton Head, S. C, declaring
all slaves in those three States to be "forever free." Lincoln,
not approving the Order, two days thereafter revoked it.
Officers in the field promptly reported their action to the Adju
tant General in Washington, and Lincoln knew all that was
transpiring. Just here I insert a communication from Gen, Robert B,
Lee that serves several purposes. It shows, first, Lincoln's in
humanity and brutal method of "putting down a Uttle insurrec
tion," as he expressed himself to the European Powers ; second,
his total disregard of human life and property-rights of all
people of the South; third, his ignorance or contempt for the
Laws of Nations, and, fourth, it illumines with the brightest
light of the noon-day sun the impassable guK between the
Cavalier and the Puritan ; it shows the chasm between the civili
zation of the South and tbat of the North ; it is a sermon on the
immeasurable difference between the exalting power of Chris
tianity and brutal paganism; it is the Uving breath of Honor,
Justice and Mercy, rebuking the despot, arrogant and brutal
in his confidence of victory based on largely superior numbers.
Finally, it will stand as a monument to Lee and bis Saxon
heroes when, on the rains of the marble memorials to Lincoln,
owls shall hoot to the surrounding desolation and bats shall
hold their trystings in the crannies of the mausoleum of Grant,
"Headquarters Army of the Confederate States,
"Near Richmond, Virginia, August 2, 1862.
"To the General Commanding United States Army, Wash
ington :
"General — ^In obedience to the order of his ExceUency, the
President of the Confederate States, I have the honor to make
to you the following communication:
"On the 22d of July last a cartel for a general exchange of
prisoners of war was signed by Major General John A. Dis,

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 843

on behaK of the United States, and by Major General D, H.
HiU, on the part of this Government. By the terms of that
cartel it is stipulated that aU prisoners of war hereafter taken
shall be discharged on parole until exchanged,
"Scarcely, had the cartel been signed when the military
authorities of the United States commenced a practice chang
ing the character of the war from such as becomes civilized
nations, into a campaign of indiscriminate robbery and
murder. "A general order, issued by the Secretary of War of the
United States, in the city of Washington, on tbe very day that
the cartel was signed in Virginia, directs the military com
mander of the United States to take the property of our
people, for the convenience and use of the navy, without
compensation. "A general order, issued by Major General Pope, on the
23d of July last, the day after the date of the cartel, directs
the murder of our peaceful citizens as spies, if found quietly
tiUing their farms in his rear, even outside of his lines,
"And one of bis Brigadier Generals, Steinwehr, has seized
innocent and peaceful inhabitants to be held as hostages, to the
end that they may be murdered in cold blood if any of his
soldiers are killed by some unko-wn persons, whom be desig
nated as 'bushwhackers.'
"Some of tbe military authorities of the United States
seem to suppose that their end will be better attained by a
savage war, in which no quarter is to be given, and no age
or sex to be spared, than by such hostilities as are alone
recognized to be -lawful in modern times. We find ourselves
driven by our enemies, by steady progress, towards a practice
which we abhor, and which we are vainly struggling to avoid,
"Under these circumstances this Government has issued
the accompanying general order, which I am directed by the
President to transmit to you, recognizing Major General Pope
and his commissioned officers to be in a position which they
have chosen for themselves — ^that of robbers and murderers,
and not that of public enemies, entitled, if captured, to be
treated as prisoners of war.

344 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
"The President also instructs me to inform you that we
renounce our right of retaliation on the innocent, and will
continue to treat the private enlisted soldiers of General
Pope's army as prisoners of war; but if, after notice to your
government tbat we confine repressive measures to the punish
ment of commissioned officers, who are willing participants in
these crimes, the savage practices threatened in the orders
alluded to be persisted in, we shall reluctantly be forced to
the last resort of accepting the war on the terms chosen by our
enemies, until the voice of an outraged humanity shall coinpel
a respect for the recognized usages of war.
"While the President considered that the facts referred
to would justify a refusal on our part to execute the cartel,
by which we have agreed to liberate an excess of prisoners
of war in ou^ hands, a sacred regard for plighted faith, which
shrinks from the semblance of breaking a promise, precludes
a resort to such an extremity. Nor is it his desire to extend
to any other forces of the United States the punishment
merited by General Pope and such commissioned officers as
choose to participate in the execution of his infamous orders.
'T have tbe honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient
servant, "R. E. Lee, General Commanding."
Note the fact that Gen. Pope's order was issued by
Lincoln's Secretary of War! Can any one believe that the
Secretary issued that without Lincoln's permission? Is any
man such a fool as to assume authority to issue such an
order without the knowledge of his superior officer — Lincoln?
The man who believes he did, knows less of war than an ant.
By the Law of Nations, no sovereign ever takes the property
of his own subjects nPt engaged in rebellion without paying
for it, or giving a receipt to be redeemed after he queUs, the
rebellion. When he refuses to pay he is classed as a highway
robber. Here, Lincoln ordered Pope to rob tbe people of the
South. He said — "take, but don't pay!"
Again: No sovereign who is not a tyrant, and at heart
a murderer, ever kills a subject not in arms against him.
But Lincoln ordered Pope to kill any and all citizens of the
Southern States who might be within his military lines. He

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 345

must shoot I them as "spies" — without trial, without arrest —
vrithout asking a question! There is nothing in tbe history
of wars within the past three hundred years, or since tbe Duke
of Alva desolated the Netherlands, that parallels this Order
of Lincoln to murder all men only because they did not abandon
homes, wives and children, and fly before bis advancing
butchers. The arrest\ at his home of the Due d'Enghien by
order of Napoleon, the mock trial by court-martial, his prede
termined conviction in order to strike terror into the hearts of
assassins of whom Enghein was only suspected as one, the de
nial of religious consolation by a priest, and his execution
by. torch-Ught the next morning, wear some features of law.
Still, this order of Napoleon is a blood-stain on his glory
that Time can never efface. But this order of Lincoln overlays
immeasurably tbe horror of that of Napoleon, The man and
the spot where he might be seen dispensed with arrest, trial
and proof of guilt. Lincoln's order was his death warrant,
and every white or black vagabond clothed in blue was com
missioned to murder him. Is other proof required of tbe
demoniac purpose of Lincoln in precipitating the war without
convening Congress; of bis thirst for blood, of his hatred of"
slave-owners? Is there a parallel, in any open war between
nations, to this command to assassinate innocent citizens dur
ing an "insurrection?" If this infamous order were the only
evidence of brutality, it is enough to enroll Lincoln's name with
the Duke of Alva, but it is one link only in a chain that
stretched, step by step, hour by hour, by night and by day,
over State after State, to the City of Columbia. When Gen. Lee
had to draw in his lines to defend Richmond, Phil Sheridan,
under an order to make the Shenandoah Valley a wilderness,
swept through it, burning dwellings, barns, mills — destroying
everything that could support life. He boasted that "a crow
flying over the valley would have to carry its rations."
But as it is impossible to make a record of the barbarities
of three million men scattered through sixteen States during
a period of nearly four years, we wiU conclude this view of
Lincoln by reference to the "March through Georgia," Lincoln
gave free rein to a General more savage than the Indian Chief
whose name he bore. His Lincolnian method of "suppressing

346 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
insurrection" was so glorious that it inflated a Northern
rhymester with doggerel until it exploded into a National Hymn
called "Marching through Georgia." He signalized his march,
first by applying the torch to Atlanta, after driving from their
homes non-combatant women and children to bear the peltings
of pitiless storms without shelter or food. There being no
enemy between him and the sea, he must demonstrate his
generalship by giving battle against something. So he
deployed his troops to the right, then to the left, and by tact
ical flank movement he closed in on empty dwellings, negro
quarters, gin bouses, hen roosts, pigsties and barns, and cap
tured tbem\ without the loss of even one of his heroes, dead or
wounded, or firing a gun. But as a conquest without firing a
gun is not considered as the highest proof of generalship, or
heroism, some firing bad to be done. So the general then cele
brated his victory by firing tbe dwellings, tbe gin houses and
the barns.
Now, every Northern visitor of musical procUvity knows
that Southem mules are very polite and affectionate in front,
and when they behold a large drove of their relations approach
ing they salute them with most vociferous joy. General Tecum-
seb, not being well acquainted witb this family greeting, at
once conceived tbe idea that tbe mules'- exclamations, which
are not so enchanting as sonorous, were disrespectful to the
Flag — "Old Glory." Besides, he was indignant because he
construed the insurgents' hee-haws to be an imitation of Lin
coln's guffaws that he al-yvays gave in applause of his o-wn
stories. He therefore ordered the Corps commanded by
"Black Jack" Logan to deploy so as to surround the "insur
gents" and close in, with "bayonets at charge" and arrest
them, but not to advance if "the enemy" tumed their heels,
"Black Jack" ordered his band to play one of Lincoln's favo
rite hymns, composed by himself —
"Hail Columbia, happy land.
If you aint drunk I will be damned,"
This music was rendered to soothe the savage breasts of
the "insurgents." The "insurgents," seeing so many familiar
faces advancing, and being moved by the sentiment of Old
Abe's favorite song, repeated their friendly salutation and

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 347
sang bass in chorus vvith the band. Being thus diverted by
the tactics of the enemy the capture of the "insurgents" w^s
achieved without firing a gun. A court martial was hastily
convened. Tbe "insurgents," while accorded tbe right to be
tried by their peers, were denied their constitutional right to be
represented by counsel, and were forthwith found guilty on
two charges, first of "insurgency" or "rebellion," and second,
of having twice insulted the Flag, and mimicked the Com
mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. The young "insur
gents" were sentenced to serve in the Artillery "for and dur
ing the insurrection," and tbe old "insurgents," who, the court
martial assumed without proof, had at some time been sworn
to support the Constitution — ^which of course included respect
for the flag — ^were sentenced to be shot without benefit of
clergy. Now, it is "a Universal Law" (this is quoted from Lincoln's
Inaugural, and must be accepted as good law by all law-abiding
citizens) among aU civilized peoples that horses, mules, cows,
hogs and chickens are classed as non-combatants — ^roo^ters
alone excepted. This exception is due to the fact that one of
the vride variety of Abraham Lincoln's many businesses, before
he became commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States of America, was cock-fighting. With that single
exception in respect for bis memory, his "Universal Law" we
must accept as almost correct, although we are not acquainted
vrith it. We can believe, however, that it must be immense.
Now, wiU the next biographer of "humble Abraham Lin
coln" (as he always spoke of himself when bunting for office),
teU us why he did not obey his Universal Law whUe "only
quelling an insurrection?" Universal Law must be God's law
—man cannot make "Universal Law." By what law did he
draft non-combatant mules and make soldiers of them? By
what law did he permit Tecumseh 's officers and privates to
loot and plunder every house they came to in Georgia— the
officers having the first grab and the privates "confiscating"
what the officers could not take away. By what law, after
Tecumseh enlisted the mules and horses in the artUlery and
cavalry, and the cows,- and hogs and chickens in his commis
sary department, did he shoot aU old mules and horses too old

348 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
to be enlisted ? Why did he deprive the old mules and horses
of the bounty that was paid on enlistment, and, also, of the
benefit of the next pension the Republican Congress intended
to vote to them or their children, or to the next of kin? The
fact that "mules have neither pride of ancestry nor hope of
posterity" is no obstruction in the path of Congress to the
treasury. Tf it should be, it will ha've tbe honorable distinction
of being the first and only one.
By what law did Lincoln sweep clean tbe homes of -widows
and orphans, the stables, barns, hog-pens, henneries, smoke
houses, of every thing therein, and set the torch to every build
ing and shed in his triumphant "March through Georgia?"
Was this ruin and inhumanity perpetrated by bim by right
given by the laws of war as established by the Law of Nations ?
No! Never! He cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath.
There is no chance here for thimblerigging; "out of his own
mouth he shall be condemned."
"In tbe corrupted currents of this world.
Offence 's gilded hand may shove by justice.
And oft I'tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law ; but 'tis not so above :
There is no shuffling ; there the action lies
In his true nature ; and we ourselves compelled
Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults
To give in evidence."
Lincoln tried to perform an impossible feat. He tried to ride
on both sides of a sapling at the same moment of time. He
tried to ride, at the same time, two horses going in opposite di
rections. He tried to justify bis Emancipation Proclamation by
appealing to the Law of Nations which permits destruction of
"the enemy's" property in time of War. Tf he was waging
war, then under tbe Constitution be bad no rigSit to wage war
against a State or States. War is a contest between different
independent nations. The rules of war cannot be resorted to
by a sovereign, or other ruler of a people to suppress an insur
rection, or a rebeUion. Tbe rules are as different as is the
difference of war between two sovereigns and any domestic
uprising, whether it be sedition, insurrection or rebellion. Tf
there was no war, Lincoln could not conduct his military opeira-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 349 \
tions under and according to tbe laws governing enemies at
war. If there was war, then the CoiKederacy was a nation, and
was no part of the Union, and he had no more right or power
to invade this territory with an army than he had to invade
Canada or Mexico without cause. And every man and boy
killed those four years was murdered by command of Abraham
Lincoln, and he stands before the courts of the world and
before the Judgment Seat of God drenched in tbe innocent
blood of a million men. If there was no war, if that struggle
was only an insurrection, then be stands seK-condemned as tbe
most brutal, savage, heartless, robber of women and children
that has ever robbed, stolen, and killed at tbe head of armies.

CHAPTER XLVm.
THE CUNNING AND TREACHERY
OF LINCOLN.
William H. Seward, Lincoln's premier, said of him — "His
cunning amounts to genius." He thus assigns to his master
intellectuality of a high but not enviable order, as the Bible
says "tbe serpent is the most cunning of aU beasts." Premier
in position, this official is premier of all witnesses. He had dis
sected his subject from his early manhood to his death. No
man knew Lincoln so weU as this witness. Besides, Nature
had endowed Seward so amply with the same low quality that
his testimony has the additional value of the confession of
superiority wrung from a jealous competitor. He boasted of
his cunning in deceiving Jefferson Da-ris. (Usher's Reminis
cences of Lincoln, page 80.) He deceived Virginia's Peace
Commissioners by such base cunning that, on the train bearing
them home with high hope was carried Lincoln's caU for 75,000
troops to invade Virginia. Like master, like man. A trace of
Lincoln's cunning vriU now be made. The reader is invited to
read carefully again the evidence of Dr. Holland, one of
Lincoln's admirfers and eulogists, quoted on page 374.
The writer challenges the worshipers of the dead Lincoln
to produce from the records of history a parallel to this descrip
tion of any man, given by a multitude of unbiased friends,
associates and neighbors. "Tbe dead Lincoln" is mentioned
because the Uving Lincoln had no, worshipers, and his few
admirers were the negrophiUsts. Is this testimony of " a cloud
of witnesses," disinterested and unimpeachable, to be ignored
— ^to be denounced as false — ^unworthy of belief? Yes — fanatics
are not to be balked wben they set their faces to peach a de
sired goal. They have swept away these witnesses as a tempest
clears a path of dead leaves. And Seward, too, has been rele
gated to the Club of Ananias.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 351
What man has ever worn from youth to manhood— from
manhood to his death at 54 years— such a bewUdering, impene
trable masque ? Mephistopheles, a creature of a glowing imag-
mation, f aUs short of this reality. Machiavelli, flesh and blood,
did not accompUsh tbe achievement here, by unanimous ac
claim, accorded to this mortaL
But we leave these slaughtered witnesses in the ignoble
obUvion to which fanaticism and hatred of the South have con
signed them, and pass on to summon another class not so re
spectable but of undeiuable veracity. Chief Justice Marshall
once said to a lawyer who was insisting that a certain thing
was a fact because it was stated in a statute — ^"Do you think
an act of legislation can create or destroy a fact, or change
the truth of history? Would it alter the fact K a legislature
should solemnly enact that Mr. Hume never wrote the history
of England? A legislature may alter a law, but no power can
reverse a fact." Daniel Webster was in court and heard the
colloquy. . I
These damnifiers to perdition of Seward, and 'Lincoln's
friends, associates and neighbors, must meet the facts that do
not, caimot Ue. They may pile books over and around their
idol mountain-high, but their labor to falsify history will be
in vain. What foUows here, expository of Lincoln's- cunning,
vriU relate only to slavery, his poUtical schemes before election
in 1860, and what he^ did after his election to tyrannize both the
South and the North.
When a boathand he floated down to New Orleans, There
he loafed several days "to see the sights." Among them was
a sale of some negro slaves. He turned to his fellow boatmen,
and, vrith aU his energy of speech and gesture, swore — "if ever
I get a lick at that thing, I'll hit it hard ! " From that hour he
was transformed into an enemy of slaveholders and of slavery.
"To hit them hard" was from that day his ambition. We shall
see that he never faltered, and that his cunning guided him
through many devious paths to his goal. We must skip twenty
years or more as uneventful in his career. But terrible com
motions were over the Union, caused by the rapid growth of
the Abolitionists as has already been described. He was sent
to the legislature several times during that interval. His only

352 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
distinction won by that service was bis bill, which was enacted,
fpr the State of lUinois to enter upon a vast system of internal
improvements that came near putting the State into bank
ruptcy. This is a part of his record as a statesman. If any
thing he was a Whig; but bis political garment was like his
own personal attire, tbat never fit well enough to exhibit fuUy
or to conceal his natural deformities. From manhood he was
ambitious — and always for political position. Herndon and
Lamon — ^his biographers — emphasize this longing for office. In
1846 he aspired to be a member of Congress, and was elected.
From tbat time to 1858 his gaze was always directed to some
office. In 1858 he aspired to be U. S. Senator. Then followed
the debates between him and Douglas — ^which wafted his name
beyond the borders of Illinois. The Whig Party had gone to
pieces in 1852. The Northern section drKted by natural affiUa-
tion into the Abolition camp. Lincoln, wary and vrily, held
back. That camp then was imder the ban of the law-abiding.
Lincoln was importuned to join it, but feared to enter. "He
ran with the hare andwfbarked vrith the hound." That is, he
was cheek by jowl vrith its members, but shied at sight of their
camp. During their joint debates Douglas often charged him
with deceit and cunning. Northern Illinois was thoroughly
tainted with abolition, while Southem Illinois was democratic.
Douglas charged that Lincoln had the face of Janus, One he
held to the North and the other to the South of the State. He
had a different speech for each end of the State. Cunning ! ^
On a night appointed the Abolitionists were to hold a pubUc
meeting in Springfield, the capitaL Lincoln was urged to
attend. He agreed, but, in the afternoon be found important
business in the country and fled. Cunning ! Tn 1854 the AboU
tionists were re-baptized the fourth time, and came to the sur
face cleansed of their sins and named Republicans. Still,
Lineoln could see the same old woK under the sheepskin that
was whelped in Boston in 1832, It had grown immensely, but
he doubted its longevity. The first christenmg still stuck to it,
and Lincoln beUeved it might not survive that ignominy. He
was a furious aboUtionist in talk, but Lincoln's ambition was
the governor of his acts. Cunning !

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 353

But those instances of cunning, while indicative of his
nature, are of minor value compared to his action after his
election as President, and to these we now turn. During the
short session of Congress before he assumed control of the
reins he kept daily watch over its proceedings. He was op
posed to all propositions for an amicable adjustment by com
promise. He telegraphed E. B. Wasbburne, a member from Illi
nois, to oppose all such offers. Any compromise would have
robbed Lincoln of the opportunity to gratKy his ambition to be
the Great Emancipator. His administration would have been
the most contemptible of any since the Union was formed. Per
sonally he was gibed, jeered, hooted at, over the North. He
was dubbed ape, gorilla, fool, gawk — ^by his own Party and by
his party press. He would have been tbe butt for foreign am
bassadors, for fashionable society, and of members of Congress.
And his first term would bave been his last. He knew this as
well as he knew that if his party had believed there was reason
able hope of bis election, he could not bave been nominated.
Cunning! On December 21st, 1860, be wrote to E. B. Wash-
burne a letter of which tbe following is a copy. It was marked
"confidential," "Springfield, Dec 21, 1860.
"Hon. E. B. Wasbburne.
"My dear Sir: — Last night T received your letter giving an
account of your interview with Gen. Scott, for which I thank
you. Please present my respects to the General and tell him
confidentiaUy T shall be obUged to bim to be as well prepared
as he can to either bold or retake the forts, as tbe case may
require, at or after tbe inauguration,
"Yours, as ever, "A, LincoUa,"
This letter the pubUc knew nothing of until 1885. South
Carolina had seceded the day before, but no fort bad been
taken or occupied by her. But South Carolina, the day before
(December 20th), bad seceded. Does it require a seer to know
what was in Lincoln's mind — ^what his purpose was— wben be
indited that letter to be held in confidence by both Wasbburne
and Gen, Scott? "Be prepared to retake forts wben I become
President!" Was he such a simpleton as to believe tbat forts

354 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
once taken by seceded States could be retaken by the asking?
If so, why instruct tbe General of the Army to get his forces
ready — "to be prepared?" A rice-field negro in Carolina, see
ing this letter, could discern behind it the tyrant — the tiger
crouched for tbe deadly leap.
Now lay the following letter to Alexander H. Stephens by
the side of the above to Wasbburne, and note the difference.
The true Lincoln wrote to Wasbburne ; Lincoln with his masque
on — ^the cunning Lincoln — wrote to Stephens, But one night
passed between the two utterances, "December 22nd, 1860,
"Hon, Alexander H, Stephens,
" Crawf ordville, Ga,
"Dear Sir: — ^Do the people of the South entertain fears that
a Republican administration would directly or indirectly inter
fere with the slaves, or with them about their slaves? Tf they
do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and stiU, I hope, not
an enemy, that there is no cause for fear.
"Yours truly, "A,LmcoUi,"
This letter, also, was to be held confidential. He wrote on
it "for your own eye only," If his design was to make a peace-
offering to the Soiith, why put Stephens on his honor to keep
the contents secret? Of what avail would be his assurance
tbat there "is no cause for fear," if it is locked up in Stephens's
breast? The cunning of the serpent, revealed by bis action
four months later, is read of all men. While he was arming for
war, be designed to keep the South inactive and unprepared,
so he could strike a decisive blow. But it may be asked — ^why
pledge Stephens to keep bis peaceable purpose secret? There
in his cunning and perfidy are shown. He knew that an open
address to the people of the South would be construed by them
as a trick, and his fanatical followers, who had chosen him as
their leader avowedly to free the negroes would charge him
vrith cowardice, and treason. But he knew that no .man could
be expected to keep secret a communication affecting the
safety, or IKe, of the republic. He knew it would be used as
he intended it should be — and hoped that its effect would allay
fear and delay preparation to meet Scott's army. If published

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 355
he could defend against the fanatics by proving it was but a
trick to keep the South quiet. In proof of this he would show
his confidential letter to Wasbburne written only the day before
to teU Scott to get ready for war, ^
The next public exhibition of cunning was in his Inaugural
address, March 4tb, 1861, Bearing in mind his telegram to
Wasbburne to oppose all compromise that would give another
foot of territory to slavery, and his letter telling Scott to pre
pare for retaking forts (which he knew meant war), we quote
only a few words he addressed to the South. After saying "it
is the declared purpose of the Union tbat it wUl constitutional
ly defend and maintain itseK," be adds: "Tn doing so, there
need be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless
it is forced upon tbe National Authority. In your hands, my
dissatisfied countrymen, and not in mine, is tbe momentous
issue of Civil war. Tbe Govemment will not assault you. You
can have no conflict without being yourselves the a^ressors!"
(Aside: "Hurry up, Gen Scott! to retake and hold tbe forts!")
"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We are
not enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not
break our bonds of affection. Tbe mystic chords of memory,
stretchmg from every battle-field and patriot grave, to every
Uving heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, vrill yet
sweU tbe chorus of tbe Union when again touched, a,s surely
they vriU be, by the better angels of our nature."
There wiU be "no bloodshed— no civU war"— all wiU be
lovely. But— "hurry up ! Gen. Scott ! and get ready for war !"
"But don't you dare to say a word of my letter!"
Bemg instaUed, bis Cabmet assembled— the Arch Anarchist,
his premier and cunning adviser, present— orders were given to
the Secretaries of War and Navy to hurry preparations for the
straggle when he should give the order. From bis high emi
nence be realized his terrible dUemma. He had been chosen by
the lawless elements to ride down the Constitution— tbe bond
of Union, He knew bis band was a minority, and, as aU mobs
are, unpopular and impecunious. He dared not revel his
purpose to demonstrate that this country must be "aU free or
^U slave," Abolition by force would not be tolerated in the
North— men and money would not support him. Hence, he

356 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
must reach his goal by circumvention. That opened a field for
the exercise of his greatest endowment — cunning ! And for suc
cess he had chosen one who stood but little lower than himseK
in the art of deception. The slogan of Freedom for the negro
could rally the fanatics — who, like Falstaff 's regiment, could
steal a shirt from every bush as they had stolen negroes — ^but
they were only fighters with tongue and pen, with paper bul
lets. He must wait until time, accident, or some move by "the
enemy" should give a rallying cry.
Soon after Carolina seceded. Major Anderson — ^in command
of Forts MoiUtrie and Sumter, and Castle Pinckney, had sud
denly evacuated the first two — spiking the guns, burning the
gun-carriages and cutting down the flag staff — and had moved
the garrison into Fort Sumter, whose guns covered Charles
ton. Then followed an attempt to reinforce Sumter with men,
arms and supplies. The vessel — ^"Star of the West" — sent for
that purpose was flred on by Carolina troops in the abandoned
forts, and returned North, These acts were done under Buch
anan's administration. The shots at the United States fl'ag
flying on the "Star of the West" produced no war enthusiasm
in the North, Meantime Congress was seething with proposi
tions for a compromise to restore peace between the two sec
tions. To be brief — all efforts at adjustment failed, Lincoln
was prompting Wasbburne and others to vote them do^wn.
Eight days after Lincoln's inauguration two of the Con
federate Peace Commissioners — Crawford and Forsyth — ^having
arrived in Wa,shington, presented by letter their credentials
to Lincoln's premier — Seward, Lincoln refused 'to see them,
and turned them over to his wUy ad^viser. He played them off.
They were told — "Mr, Seward desired to avoid making any
reply at that time." But he wrote a "Memorandum" as a
reply, March 15th, and concealed it in bis office. Then Justice
Campbell of the U. S, Supreme Court appealed to Justice
Nelson, a friend of Seward, to see him. Justice Nelson did
so, and reported to Justice CampbeU, and assured bim tbat
"Seward was strongly inclined to a peaceable arrangement,"
Judge Campbell then sought Seward and bad an interview.
The result was tbat he "felt entire confidence tbat Fort
Sumter would be evacuated in ten days, and that no measure

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 857
prejudicial to the Southern Confederate States are at present
contemplated, ' ' Seward was informed of the assurance having
been reported by Justice Campbell to the Confederate Commis
sioners , This assurance was communicated to President Davis,
who, relying on Seward's honor, suspended all military opera
tions at and around Charleston. This "Memorandum" pre
pared by Seward on March 15th, was still sleeping quietly in
its pigeon-hole. It enjoyed twenty-three days of rest before
it was aroused and thrown in the face of the Peace Commis
sioners to explode as the opening bomb of tbe war. But during
that ominous slumber a squadron had been fitted out secretly
in New York harbor to proeed to Fort Sumter with troops,
guns, ammunition and pro-visions as supplies for a siege, Tbe
Peace Commissioners again requested Justice Campbell to see
Seward, and he renewed bis ironical assurance in words tbat
are emblazoned in history. He replied to Justice Campbell —
"Faith as to Sumter fuUy kept — ^wait and see!" The next
morning Justice Campbell and the Peace Commissioners read
in the press tbat Lineoln bad sent a messenger to Gov. Pickens
^of South Carolina tbat Fort Sumter would be relieved "peace
ably or by force." The war fleet was then at sea on its voyage
to Sumter. The "Memorandum" was then aroused from its
repose of twenty-three days to do its deadly work.
Cunning? Yes — double cunning! Seward was fooling the
Peacemakers at Lincoln's command, while Lincoln was fooling
Seward and tbe country. Seward, all his biographers and
eulogists say, was indifferent to Secession. He said "it was all
a humbug." He said to Wm. H. Russell, war correspondent
of the London Times, "I am confident there will be reaction.
The seceded States wiU see their mistake, and one after another
they wUl come back into the Union, ' ' How was Lincoln fooling
Seward? He made Seward bold back tbe "Memorandum,"
which was to dismiss the Confederate Commissioners with con
tempt, whUe he was hurrymg WeUes, Secretary of the Navy,
to get a fleet off to Fort Sumter, He knew Seward was not for
war as tbe first step, and he concealed from him that bis pur-'
pose was to force tbe Confederates to fire on "Old Glory" to
give bim what he needed, and without which be could not
arouse tbe war-spirit in the North, He planned to send the

353 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
fleet because he knew it would open the war by which his life
ambition to be the "Great Emancipator of tbe Slaves" could
be realized. That Lincoln's cunning may be clearly understood it is
important to bear in mind his declarations and compare them
with his acts, ' 'There vrill be no civil war — ^no hostile invasion.
I only intend to enforce the laws as I have sworn to do." His
premier, at Lincoln's command, informed, by letters, the
crowned heads of Europe, that the disturbance in this country
was nothing more than an insurrection. Every Ruler in the
Old World knew what that word means, and witb their igno
rance of our complex form of government, believing that our
President, like themselves, was the supreme Ruler, and, as such,
had authority to quell an insurrection with his army, they
accepted his falsehood as truth.
Again : To avoid tbe donstitution, and the well known fact
that the delegates who framed the Constitution voted down
unanimously a proposition to give the federal govemment
power to make war ousa State, Lincoln and Seward kept on
repeating the declaration, at home and abroad, tbat there was
no wa.r — and he was only trying to quell an insurrection. This
falsehood was veiled in the hourly and unvarying use of the
words "Rebel" and "Rebellion," This cunning was to inspire
his soldiers vrith the pleasing delusion tbat they were tbe heroic
patriots fighting and dying "to preserve liberty by saving the
Union," As they knew nothing of the law that established
immovably the relations of the States and tbe federal govern
ment, and had dinned into their beads that the mighty federal
government was a Nation, like Great Britain, or Spain, or
Russia, they had no conception that Lincoln in contemplation
of law, and through hatred of the South and slavery, was
using them as cut-throats and murderers, to gratify bis insane
ambition. Before entering the dark and dismal labyrinth where lay
shrouded from mortal ken the secret impulses of the heart of
this human Sphinx, let us contemplate the panoramic scene
stretching far and vride around him when, after tbe mockery
of kissing the Book he had labored to discredit by mimicry
and ridicule, and after quaffing the delicious plaudits of his

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 359
fanatical foUo-wing — he, Uke tbe Turk "at midnight in his
guarded tent," in the solitude of his imperial couch, was dream
ing of the glory tbat awaited him. Then another panorama,
bodied forth by an imagination of infinite sweep, rises unbidden
to our vision, that, in some of its gloomy and horrid features,
bears resemblance to this one of reality now before us :
"High on his seat of royal state, which far
Outshone tbe wealth of Ormus and of Ind,
Or where tbe gorgeous East, with richest hand
Showers on her Kings barbaric pearl and gold,
Satan exalted sat, by merit raised
To that bad eminence, "
As comparison of small things to great, ofttimes, by contrast,
enforces comprehension, just as pictures of scenes in history
make more lasting impress on tbe mind than verbal description,
we wiU take a glance at two colossal figures — one, tbe hero of
a sublime Epic — of war wagisd in Heaven ; tbe other, tbe ruling
spirit in the world's most terrible tragedy; one in war celestial,
the other in war terrestrial ; one, a Rebel, falling from his lofty
angelic station — "with ambitious aim,
"Against the throne and monarchy of God
Raised impious war in Heaven;"
The other, from man's lowest station in his fallen state, rising
above the ground by capillary ascension, "witb ambitious aim,"
against aU laws of men and commands of God, raised impious
war on His footstool.
One, mad by ambition, overthrown, preferred "to reign
in HeU than serve in Heaven;" tbe other felt that "to reign
is worth ambition, though in Hell!" Obe, Chief m command
of millions of fallen angels, assaulted for destruction tbe battle
ments of Heaven; tbe other. Chief in command of millions of
fallen, rebeUious mortals, assaulted for destraction Earth's
strongest Temple — the only Paradise the chUdren of Adam and
Eve have enjoyed smce they fell by sm and were driven from
the Garden of Eden,

CHAPTER XLIX.
LINCOLN'S DECEPTION OF THE PEOPLE
NORTH AND SOUTH.
The lie sp oft repeated as to be now a part of history as
made by Northern writers, is, that the vessels controlled by the
common agent of all the States — the federal govemment—
which bad been sent into the Southern waters, were merchant
vessels. How came it tbat only four days after Lincoln's Call
for troops, he issued a proclamation to the world of the block
ade of all ports in seven Southern States, and that all persons
who should molest the vessels would be treated as pirates?
Were they changed from merchant vessels, armed with cannon
and carriage, maimed and fully equipped, and at their blockade
moorings, within four days — ^three of which were required to
reach the nearest, and seven days to reach the farthest of the
blockaded ports stretching from Charleston, S. C. to Galveston,
Texas? Lincoln's worshipers mijist take one or tbe other bom
of a dilemma here presented — either tb^t he proclaimed a false
hood to the nations of Europe, or accept Seward's dictum of
Lincoln's cunning, and, also, of bis perfidy in dealing witb the
North as well as with tbe South. He was "fooling all the
people" at tbat early stage of his Dictatorship and Despotism.
The people of the North did not dream of the cunning of this
victim of melancholia who had for many months been preparing
for tbe coup de grace sprung on the North within one month
after he took tbe oath of office to support the Constitution.
But the cunning he showed in deceiving the Confederate
Commissioners and Justices Campbell and Nelson, and the Com
missioners sent by Virginia, and all Europe, by his paper-
blockade, was negligible in comparison witb his deception of
the people of tbe North. Tbe history of the period between
secession by South Carolina and Lincoln's inauguration proves
that tbe controling people in tbe North were against war on
the Confederate States. Horace Greeley, whose paper, the

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 861
Tribune, was the strongest molder of public opinion on the ques
tion of slavery, said — "Let tbe wayward sisters go in peace."
Seward — ^Lincoln's mentor — said, "Tbe Southern States will
soon see their mistake and return to tbe Union." The most
rabid fanatics on slavery had accomplished their purpose — ^they
had gotten rid of that "twin sister of barbarism." They knew
that tbe remaining slave-States would be compeUed, for secu
rity, to follow and join the seceded States. President Buch
anan, guided by the written opinion of his legal advisei;', Attor
ney General Jeremiah S, Black, had decided that tbe President
had no right to invade a State with a hostile army. The religious
section that bad faUen in behind tbe irreligious fanatics were
appeased by ridding the Union of "the sin of slavery." The
radicals who bad threatened to secede and form a Noi^thern
Confederacy, bad attained their aim by the secession of the
slave States. The commercial interests, so potent with the
purse for peace or war, were against war, especially by invasion
of the South. Mass meetings were held in New York City
and Philadelphia and expressed their opposition to fraternal
bloodshed. The legislature of Massachusetts showed a spirit
of reconciUation by modifying her Personal Liberty Law by
an Act passed as late as March 25th, 1861. Many other facts
could be given to prove tbat the overwhelming majority of the
men at the North had no thought of or desire for war between
the States.
But more than 1,800,000 voters, all of the Free States,, had
chosen a man to rule them and to hold their lives at his will,
of whose bosom-councils they were in total ignorance. They
had blindly placed themselves as pawns in the game he intended
to play vrith the God of Battles. Fanatics see but one object,
and that is projected forward from the brain, Nothmg to the
right, tbe left, or the rear is visible. So ignorant as to believe
that a President could abolish slavery, and that it would con
tinue so long as a Democrat should be President, they haUed
Lincoln as the deliverer of the country from that abomma-
tion. Their cry was not in vain, but litle did they dream that.
to answer then- prayer, he, to the music of "Tbe Dead Man's
March," would wade through their blood and stride the
trenches where their flesh lay rotting.

362 TRUE VINDICATION OP THE SOUTH
On the 20th of April, by his order, the shipyard at Norfolk,
Va.j was set on fire at midnight and abandoned by the com
mandant and garrison. One warship was burned and six
frigates were sunk. All other property in the shipyard belong
ing to the States was burnt or broken up. On tho 21st the
officer in command at Harper's Ferry burnt the buildings
belonging to the States, and moved bis command to Washing
ton; and on the 22nd of April Lincoln directed his Secretary
of War to express to the officer in command his approbation of
the destruction of tbat valuable property. On the 19th of
April troops from New York and Massachusetts arrived in Balti
more. There and then occurred the first conflict and was shed
the first blood of tbe war. Patriotic citizens, unarmed, disputed
the passage of armed troops through Baltimore to make war on
the South. They fought guns with rocks gathered from the
pavement. A few soldiers were wounded — some citizens were
killed and many were wounded. Some troops got through to
Washington, while those in the rear were turned back. On the
21st, Mr. Brown, Mayor of Baltimore, and other prominent
citizens, at Lincoln's request, went to Washington, They went
before the Cabinet in session, and Mayor Brown made a report
in -writing of what Lincoln said. The report, in part, was as
foUows: "The protection of Washington, he asseverated with
great earnestness, was the sole object of concentrating troops
there ; and he protested that none of the troops brought through
Maryland were intended for any purpose hostile to the States,
or aggressive as against the South,"
Cunning! Perfidy! There were no Confederate soldiers
nearer Washington than Charleston, S. C. Why bad he ordered
the shipyard and ships at Norfolk and all property at Harper's
Ferry to be burnt? But we will leave Lincoln to answer
Lincoln, An army had been organized, and under command
of Gen, B, P, Butler, on the 5tb of May, it took military posses
sion of the Relay House near Baltimore, and held it until the
13th, when he marched to Federal HUl, and issued a brutal
proclamation to the people of Baltimore, All manufacturers of
arms and munitions of war were ordered to report to him. Thus
within 21 days after Lincoln's solemn assurance to Mayor
Bro-wn of Maryland's security from any hostility, be planted

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 363
his heel upon her neck. One reflection here, before we proceed,
is of great interest to statesmen and lawyers. Lincoln, by con
cession, was the agent of tbe States. His powers were crit-
icaUy deflned and expressly Umited. Yet, through ignorance of
law, or, far worse, through perfidy and despotism, be destroyed
by fire property of the States at Norfolk and Harper's Ferry
worth millions of doUars, For this, he could and should bave
been impeached. For this, a Congress of statesmen and patriots
would have impeached him, and there would have been no war.
But power in the hands of a fanatic, who, by the testimony of
his intimate friends from boyhood, among whom was his Attor
ney General, James Speed, was afflicted with lunacy, acquires
¦ rapid and destructive momentum. Tbat persistent melancholy
mood observed by aU, that constantly found a foil in dirty
stories, and in reading Petroleum Nasby's exaggerations, was
not then understood,
Maryland's subjugation proceeded witb furious celerity.
Lincoln ordered Gen. Butler to disarm Baltimore. He obeyed
and stored tbe arms in Fort McHenry, He then ordered Gen.
Banks, successor in command to Butler, to arrest the marshal
of Baltimore, and to imprison him in Fort McHenry. To this
tyranny tbe Mayor and police officers entered a written protest.
For that they — Charles Howard, Wm. H. Gatscbell, Charles D.
Hinks and John W. Davis — ^were arrested and put in prison. A
Provost Marshall then ruled Baltimore. This was done on July
1st. The legislature met. A committee was appointed^ to whom
was referred the appeal to tbe legislature of the imprisoned
poUce commissioners. The Hon. S. Teacle Walli^, chairman,
made the report for tbe committee, in which they appealed to
the country and all parties to take warning from the usurpa
tions and to come to the rescue of Liberty and the RepubUc.
Thereupon Gen. Banks sent his Provost-marshal to Frederick
with an armed force, surrounded the town, and advancing on
the legislature, arrested Wallis and a sufficient number of the
legislature to break a quorum. Among them were Henry, M.
Warfield, Charles H. Pitts, Ross Winans, John Hanson, and F.
Key Howard. Thus was the legislature suppressed. Henry
May, a member of Congress from Maryland, was also arrested

364 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
and imprisoned. From that day to the end of the war Mary
land was ruled by the military as Rome ruled a conquered
province. Let us pause a moment to view this ruin wrought by a per
jured, brutal despot to gratify an insane lambition. Never had
a tyrant wound around him such a net of falsehoods, inconsist
encies, contradictions, each and all first dyed in blood. Mary
land had not seceded. She was a sovereign State in the Union.
The only bond of that Union was the Constitution. Lincoln was
the creature of that Constitution. Maryland was one of the
thirteen States tbat made it. Lincoln had just sworn to support
it. To avoid cavil, or possible dispute, we assume for the mo
ment that a State had no right to secede. That step Maryland
had not. attempted, Lincoln protested that bis only puirpose in
calling for an army was to enforce the laws. Maryland bad not
resisted any federal law. Even in South Carolina there had
been no resistance to any law, Lincoln had not attempted to
enforce any federal law in Carolina, Fort Sumter bad been
taken by Carolina, but Maryland was no more a party to that
act than was Massachusetts, Then what law was he trying to
enforce in Maryland ? The police of Maryland had -violated no
federal law. They had tried to control tbe men who attacked
tbe militia who had responded to his call. They picked up guns
and baggage of the troops and gave them to the soldiers. By
what law did Lincoln arrest and imprison tbe police, tbe police
commissioners, the Mayor, the members of tbe legislature of
Maryland, a member of Congress, and imprison them in Fort
McHenry and Washington, and then send them to other prisons
in the North? Yes; be was only enforcing tbe laws and
had just sworn to support tbe Constitution, which told him:
"The privUege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be sus
pended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public
safety may require it."
Was it chance or foreknowledge that determined Lincoln to
select Benjamin F. Butler, a Puritan, and of Massachusetts, and
a civilian, to tyrannize over Maryland? Did he not know his
man? Was it chance or design that chose N, P, Banks, another
Massachusetts Puritan, and a civilian, to succeed Butler to
prolong tbat tyranny? The names of a few of the victims ar-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 865
rested and imprisoned by these satraps of the despot, have been
given, tjut they arrested ninety-seven leading citizens of Mary
land and put them in dungeons, without warrant, without
definite charge, refusing to obey the writ of habeas corpus, and
done on Lincoln's order alone.
With a brief notice of but one incident illustrative of the
inconceivable contrast between Maryland's condition in 1814
and 1861 — only 47 years — ^we will pass on to survey a far wider
field of like despotism. One of the noble sons of Maryland, thus
imprisoned, was F. Key Howard, a grandson of Francis S. Key,
the author of "Tbe Star Spangled Banner." He shaU tell his
own story. In his experience called "Fourteen Months in
American BasfiUes," page 9, be writes: "When I looked out
in the moming, I could not help being struck by an odd ana
not pleasant coincidence. On that day forty-seven years before,
my grandfather, Mr. F. S, Key, then prisoner on a British ship,
had witnessed the bombardment of Fort McHenry, Wben on
the following morning tbe hostile fleet drew off, defeated, h©
wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the
Star-Spangled Banner, As I stood upon the very scene of the
conflict, I could not but contrast my position witb his, forty-
seven years before. The flag which he then so proudly hailed,
I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar
and bratal a despotism as modern times bave witnessed."
And the Puritans of New England, under Butler, were then
regaling tbe ears of victims of their despotism in that Bastille
with music of a brass band, tbat run to the words —
"Tbe Star-Spangled Banner! Oh! long may it wave.
O'er the land of tbe free, and tbe home of tbe brave."
If, in travesty, mockery, derision, beastly inhumanity, there be
another instance in history that approaches to this, it was when
the poor of Paris, driven to desperation by hunger, appealed
to Marie Antoinette in her royal palace for bread, and, vrith
contempt and heartlessness, she answered: "Why don't the
wretches eat cakes?"

CHAPTER L.
A SUPPOSED SOLILOQUY.
We resume the review of Lincoln's cunning and treachery.
Tbe States delegated to -Congress the exercise of their power
to declare war, and tbat only against a foreign Power. Lincoln
had no more power to declare war or to begin war than had
bis bootblack. And neither had Congress nor any other ag3nt
cf the States any right to make war on a State. We -wiU see
how cunningly be played his game to get his grasp on slavery.
For four months of anxious waiting and watching be had
played to gain his vantage ground.
"How can I set on fire the Northern heart? The Union flag
waving above 'The Star of the West' was fired on, and no third
of vengeance was aroused. My foUowers are fanatics and fools.
The intelligence, the conservation, the wealth of the North are
all against me. What shall I do to justify me in turning loosa
the dogs of war ? They hate me, call me ape — gorilla — gawk —
giraffe — fool — ^Yes, T know T am
'Not made to court an amorous looking glass,
I am rudely stamped and want love 's majesty^—
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion.
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature!
. Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world scarce half made up, '
"As I Eim subtle, false and treacherous, I — ^who now am
clothed with the power of a giant — shall use it like a giant and
a tyrant. I'll teach them who and what I am! I've tricked
the rebels to fire on the flag, and the opening gun shaU be 'the
knell tbat summons me to Heaven, or to HeU.' If through seas
of blood I wade triumphant to my crown, my ambition — ^my
only Heaven— will be gained. Should I fail — tbe execrations,
anathemas, fiery curses of betrayed mankind, shall be my por
tion. But— as this petty life is tbe be-all that ends with the
grave— what matters it ? As now I am jeered, hooted, scoffed,
spurned, condemned ; am charged to be an infidel, because rea-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 867
son demands that I call the Bible a fable and Christ a bastard ;
and pollution drips from my tongue as I talk — ^Hark ! the can
non 's roar! Now, for Ruin's reign! I'll set my squadrons in
the field. Those blooming, fruitful fields I'll ravage. Those
smiling, peaceful valleys, I'll sweep witb destruction so com
plete, the birds of tbe air will perish. Those hills and plains
I'll sow with blood so deep and bones so bigh they'll be my
monument. Should discontent assail me in the rear, I'll kick
the Constitution from my path, all legal process sweep aside,
send judges with the habeas corpus, and all dissenters, to
murky dungeons — ^to sweat and groan till the nation shall be
cowed. To fire the Northern heart I'll veil my sworn intent,
and cry : ' The Union is in Danger ! Come to the Rescue ! ' Then,
when bot blood is flowing, when passion has blinded reason,
and tbe cry of widows and orphans drowns tbe gentle voice of
peace, and time and opportunity meet, I'll tear avvay my
Mokanna veil, and proclaim Freedom for every slave. Then,
servile insurrection, murder, and the torch will be my allies, to
assaU tbe rear while I mow down tbe front. ' All HaU! Thane
of Cawdor!' "Conscience? What is conscience to me? 'Tis true, wit
nessed by thousands, I pressed my lip on the skin of a butchered
beast — ^the covering of a fable mocked by me — but I said not
'So help me God,' tbat fetish, like tbe piUory, to force petty
men to stand flrm. Tbe means, caUed tyranny, vrill sanctify
my lofty aim wben reached. The Constitution? What is that
but paper? What care the shouting ring for tbe paper on the
hoop, after the acrobat, bursting through it, lands upon his feet
on the horse's back? Did not Seward— my premier— and his
Higher Law dupes swear to support the Constitution? Did
conscience bold them? How came I here, if not on the rabble's
cry of a Higher Law? What is my conscience but that I ap
prove ? Nature is my God ! Sun, moon, stars, the ocean, rocks
and trees — this whirling sphere of which I am and it of me—
they bave no conscience, but they do their appointed work. So
must I. If a miUion of my legions bite the dust in this grand
crasade they'U but anticipate their time of sweating and grop
ing through a few years more, to die unknown. Widows wiU
wear sable, orphans wiU cry in vain, then curse me in bitter

363 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
savagery ; but when the negroes are free and I haVe shaken off
this mortal deformity, they'll forget murdered husbands and
fathers, and shout hosannahs to my name.
"The end sanctifies tbe means. Is proof needed? See my
compatriot — John Bro-wn. But yesterday hailed assassin ! mur
derer ! a demon— pitiless as a hungry tiger ! Today, a martyr,
a patriot, a hero, sanctified by a scaffold and a hangman's rope.
Ah! what a weather-vane — vaciUating as the vrind, dissolving
as the clouds, now a weasel, now a camel, now a rushing, roar
ing tempest — is this human rabble, crawling between the colos
sal legs — huddled around the feet — of blind Destiny ; shouting
today 'Release unto us Barabbas, tomorrow joyfully singing as
flames lick their quivering flesh, for a cracifled, imaginary
Savior !
"Should that Nemesis that, in visions by day and dreams by
night, I, through a mysterious, unknown sense, bave seen, felt,
lurking behind me, in an unguarded moment, snuff out this
light, tbe rabble that have uplifted me, hailing my tyranny as
patriotism, will call me blessed martyr, and crown me with bay
and laurels undying, till the cold insensate hand of History,
digging beneath the rubbish of human laudation, as archaeolo
gists elear away the accumulated dust with which Time has
slowly hidden deep some ancient ruin, shall upheave the pagan
idol I so long have worshiped, and what they now praise as
wisdom shall be found but the low cunning of the serpent."
Whether presentiments of evil are of a disordered imagina
tion, or of neurotic conditions, or of aboriginal superstition,
or insanity; or whether they may be inaudible whispers of
warning by a guiding spirit hovering in the invisible world —
we do not, and may never, know. _ But experience, our wisest
counselor, has taught the trath that "there are more things in
Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in our phUosophy. ' '
From early manhood, Lincoln was possessed with tbe fear
tbat a violent death awaited him. He could neither laugh, nor
joke, nor reason it away. He often mentioned it to friends. As
he bade them farevrell, when leaving for Washington, be told
his intimate friends he would not retum alive. During the day
of April 14th, 1865 — the day for Nemesis to arrive — ^he was
unusually despondent and gloomy. He again repeated his pre-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 869
sentiment. He was urged, against his wish, to attend Ford's
Theatre that night. Leaving every one to his opinion, whether
he believes in presentiments or assumes to scout them, still it is
a coincidence tbat challenges the indurated skeptic, that just
four years to the hour from signing his call — forbidden by the
laws of God and man — for an army to shed bis brothers" blood,
he was summoned before the Throne of tbe God be had scoffed
through life, to answer for that crime unparalleled in history.

CHAPTER LI.
TESTIMONY OF PERSONAL INTIMATES
ABOUT LINCOLN.
On the testimony of his law partner, W. H. Herndon, who
knew Lincoln intimately twenty-four years, and of Ward H.
Lamon, bis biographer ; of James H. Mathoney, Hon. John T,
Stuart, Judge David Davis, Dr, C. H. Ray, Jesse W, Fell, New
ton Bateman, and others — all his intimate friends, and promi
nent citizens of Springfield, IlUnois, as well as on the authority
of bis step-mother, Lincoln was an infidel, a fataUst, and at
times an atheist, Herndon says: — "When a candidate for the
legislature Lincoln was accused of being an infidel, K not an
atheist, and of saying Christ was an illegitimate child, and he
would not deny the charges. In his moments of gloom, he
would doubt, if he did not sometimes deny God, In 1847, when
a candidate for Congress, he was accused of being an infidel,
if not an atheist, and he said he would die rather than deny it,
because" says Herndon, "he knew it could and would be
proved on him,"
Lamon says : "Wben Lincoln went to church at all, he went
to mock, and came away to mimic."
Mr, Bateman says: "Lincoln, learning just before the elec
tion in 1860 that only three of twenty-three minist^s of the
Gospel in Springfield, would vote for him, expressed surprise
and drew out from his bosom the New Testament and said 'this
is the rock on which I stand,' " Bateman expressed his sur
prise, and told Lincoln his friends were ignorant of his religious
views, Lineoln answered quickly, "I 'tnow they are; I am
obliged to appear different to them." Here is the woK in
sheep's clothing; all because his "overweening ambition"
(Lamon) was ravenous for poUtical office.
Judge David Davis, whom Lincoln appointed U, S, Supreme
Judge, says: "I knew the man so weU-— he was the most reti
cent, secretive man I ever saw, or expect to see. He had no
faith, in the Christian sense of the term."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 871
Herndon says: "Lineoln never named Christ in writing or
speakmg. In writing to give consolation to his dying father,
he would not name Christ. Tn a speech I wrote I used the
word God. Lincoln made me strike it out,
Stuart says: "I knew Mr. Lincoln when he first came here
(Springfield, 1834), and for years afterwards. He was an
avowed and open infidel."
Herndon, again, in writing to Lamon: "Lincoln was an
infidel — atheist — ^was a fatalist, denied freedom of the WiU,
He wrote a book to prove, first, that the Bible was not God's
revelajion ; second, that Jesus was not the Son of God. I assert
this on my own knowledge. Judge Logan, John T, Stuart,
James H, Mathoney, and others will tell you the truth — will
confirm what I say, wi,th this exception — ^they all make it
blacker," Lamon says, page 503, "If Lincoln did not believe in Chris
tianity, tbe masses of the 'plain people' did; and no one ever
was more anxious to do 'whatsoever was of good report among
men,' To quaUfy himseK for office, he always appealed to the
Christian's God either by laying bis band on the Gospels, or
by some other invocation common among beUevers. Of course
the ceremony was superfluous, for it imposed no religious obli
gation upon him." * * * His mind was readily impressed
with the most absurd superstitions, * * * While it is
very-clear that Mr, Lincoln was at all times an infidel * * *
it is also very clear that he was not at all times equally v^illing
that everybody should know it. He never offered to purge
or recant, but be was a wily politician, and did not disdain to
regulate his reUgious manifestations -with some reference to
his poUtical interests,"
A friend of Lincoln, Samuel Hill, heard Lincoln read his
book attacking the Christian's Faith, and Lincoln assured him
he (Lincoln) intended to publish it. Hill snatched it from bis
hand and threw it in a red hot stove. Hill said he did that
to prevent Lincoln from committing poUtical suicide,
Hon, John T. Stuart : "He was an avowed and open infidel.
He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrine and
principles than any man I ever beard ; he shocked me. The Rev.
Dr. Smith tried to convert Lincoln from infideUty so late as
1858, and couldn't do it,"

372 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Mathoney: "Lincoln would come into the clerk's office
where I and some young men were -writing, and would bring
the Bible with him ; would read a chapter and argue against it.
Lincoln often, if not wholly, was an atheist ; at least bordering
on it. He was enthusiastic in his infidelity. He told me he did
write a book on infidelity," This is the book his friend, HiU,
burnt, Lincoln's vridow said: "Mr, Lincoln had no hope and no
faith in the usual acceptance of those words,"
Mr, Speed, afterwards appointed Attorney General by Lin
coln, says (page 241, Lamon) : "Lincoln's derangement was
nearly if not quite complete. We had to remove razors from
bis room, take away aU knives and other dangerous things.
It was terrible!"
Mrs, Edwards, sister to Mary Todd, whom Lincoln jilted,
says (page 240, Lamon) : "Lincoln and Mary were engaged;
everything was ready and prepared for the marriage, even to
the supper, Mr, Lincoln refused to meet his engagement.
Cause — insanity. ' '
Herndon says: "Lincoln's religion was 'the Fatherhood
of God and the Brotherhood of Man,' " That is not quite as
high sounding as his "Universal Law," but it is as lucid and
comprehensive as Parson Jasper's lecture on the Universe
which be condensed into "De world do move," It is quite
as efficacious as an iron life-preserver to a dro-wning man, and,
for salvation, it is just as convincing as tbe old negro's plea
of "not guilty, because I stole de pants fur to be baptize in,"
For its egotism, leaming, and the seK-complaceney of profound
ignorance, it finds a paraUel in another negro preacher named
John Marshall who was wont to scatter promiscuously his
theology around Savannah just before Lincoln marched into
Virginia to demonstrate a lunatic's idea of the "brotherhood
of man" by murdering a miUion whites to give social equality
to blacks. Old John, almost as conceited as Lincoln, announced sud
denly one day to his young master "dat dere aint enny part
of the Scripture I can't expound,"
"I am glad to bear that, John, There is one word in the
Scriptures I don't understand."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 373
"What's dat. Mars Charlton?"
"John, the Scriptures say 'The firmament showeth his
handiwork,' That word firmament has troubled my mind aU
my IKe. Tell me the meaning of that word, firmament,"
"Mars Charlton— as to de regards uv de furmurment— de
furmurment. Mars Charlton, is a spechus (species) uv self-
rightushness. Fur, (for) you know, in dem days, before de
curation (creation) uv de world, when Pentecost was perse-
cutin uv Paul an Silas in de wilderness —
"Hold on, John! Pentecost was not born then,*'
"Mars Charlton! You'se young yit. You dun no Pentecost
m dem days was a growed-up man. Mars Charlton."
"Tbe Fatherhood of God!" Yes— and denied the fatherhood
of the Father's "only begotten Son" by proclaiming that Son a
bastard ! Enough of his fatherhood !
"The Brotberhod of Man!" If he meant that in responsi
bUity to God every man stands on one level, and that each is
under the same divine laws, and must stand or fall as he may
obey or disobey those laws, then be was not in error. But
that is not the creed of infidels, nor of men who deny punish
ment for disobedience of the laws of God. Did he deny that?
Look at page 489 of Lamon, and read what Wm. H. Hannah
says: "Since 1856, Lincoln told me that he was a kind of im-
mortaUst; that he never could bring himself to believe in
eternal punishment." Herndon, in bis letter to Lyman Abbott,
vvho was gathering material for a biography of Lincoln, said :
"Lincoln believed in no hell and no punishment in a future
world," As the Old Testament is silent on future rewards and pun
ishments and the resurrection ; and as the New Testament rests
solely on the teachings of Christ, and as Lincoln repudiated
the divinify of Christ, and also denied that the Old Testament
was inspired, and believed it was nothing more than Jewish
history and tbe writings of men, we arrive at the conclusion
that his faith bad no more foundation than that of the Greeks
and Romans who believed in Zeus or Jupiter as the Supreme
God and ruler, Tbe corollary to this conclusion is that, in
Faith, Lincoln was a pagan. A pagan's conscience was indi
vidual, that is, it was to each and every man what be believed

374 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
to be right or -virrong. Here we find the key to Lincoln's "over-.
weening," "intense," "inordinate" ambition; bis expressed
yearning for place and power and distinction.
Hernd,on says: "Soon after the death of Mr. Lincoln, Dr,
J, G, Holland came out to Illinois from bis home in Massachu
setts to gather up material for a life of tbe dead President.
The gentleman spent several days witb me, and I gave bim all
the assistance that lay in my power. I felt sure that, even
after my long and intimate acquaintance with Mr, Lincoln, I
never fully knew and understood bim, and I, therefore, won
dered what sort of a description Dr. Holland, after interview
ing Lincoln's old-time friends, would make of his individual
characteristics. When the book appeared be said this : ' The
writer has conversed with multitudes of men who claimed to
know Mr. Lincoln intimately; yet, there are not two of the
whole number who agree in their estimate of bim. The fact
was that be rarely showed more than one aspect of himseK to
one man. He opened himself to men in different directions. To
illustrate the effect of the peculiarity ' of Mr. Lincoln's inter
course with men it may be said tbat men who knew him
through all bis professional and poli|;ical life offered opinions
as diametrically opposite as these, viz: "that be was a very
ambitious man, and that be was without a particle of ambition;
that be was one of the saddest men that ever lived, and that
he was one of the j oiliest men that ever lived; that he was
very religious, but that he was not a Christian ; that he was a
Christian, but did not know it ; that be was so far from being
a religious man or a Christian that 'the less said upon that
subject the better;' that he was the most cunning man in
America, and that he had not a particle of cunning in him;
that he bad the strongest personal attachments, and that he
bad no personal attachments at all — only a general good feel
ing towards everybody; that he was a man of indomitable wiU,
and that he was a man almost without a will; that be was a
tyrant, and that he was the softest-hearted, most brotherly man
that ever lived; that he was remarkable for his pure-minded-
ness, and that he was tbe foulest in his jests and stories of any
man in the country ; tbat he was a witty man, and that he was
only a retailer of the wit of others; that his apparent candor

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 375
, and fairness were only apparent, and that they were as real as
his head and his bands ; that be was a boor, and that he was in
all respects a gentleman; that he was a leader of the people,
and that he was always led by the people; and that he was
always susceptible of the strongest passions,' "
J. B. Helm furnished a manucsript to Mr. Herndon. The
incident here given is recorded on page 14 of Herndon 's
"LincoUi." "The Hanks girls," narrates tbe latter,. "were great at
camp-meetings. T remember one in 1806. I will give you a
scene, and if you will then read the books written on the sub
ject you may flnd some apology for tbe superstition that was
said to be in Abe Lincoln's character. It was at a camp-
meeting, as before said, wben a general shout was about to
commence. Preparations were being made; a young lady in
vited me to stand on a bench by her side where we could see
all over tbe altar. To tbe right a strong, athletic young man,
about twenty-five years old, was being put in trim for the
occasion, which was done by divesting bim of all apparel ex
cept shirt and pants. On the left a young lady was being put
in trim in, the same manner, so that ber clothes would not be in
the way, and so that, when her combs flew out, her hair would
go into graceful braides. She, too, was young — ^not more than
twenty perhaps, Tbe performance commenced about the same
time by tbe young man on the right and tbe young lady on tbe
left. Slowly and gracefully they worked their way towards
the centre, singing, shoutmg, hugging and kissing, generally
their own sex, until at last nearer and nearer they came. The
centre of tbe altar was reached, and tbe two closed, with their
arms around each other, the man singing and shouting at tbe
top of his voice, "I bave my Jesus in my arms
Sweet as honey, strong as bacon ham,"
"Just at this moment tbe young lady holding^ to my arm
whispered, 'They are to be married next week; her name is
Hanks, ' "Hail Columbia, happy land,
' If you aint drunk I wiU be damned,"

376 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
The career of Abraham Lincoln is a paradox that baffles
all understanding. It defles description. It beggars language.
It makes flction that curdles the blood of age, commonplace, and
the dime novel a bore. It forces yawns over the pages of Rider
Haggard, and elevates Munchausen to the dignity of a his
torian. It makes fraternity hypocrisy, and gives immortality
to bate and execration. It turns the milk of human kindness
into the discord of Hell, It gives to obscenity a passport to the
drawing room. Its brutality throws a meUow light over the
Duke of Alva, who, while butchering bis foes, never, by starva
tion, murdered his friends. It furnishes to the lawless of every
grade the plea of justiflcation, under tbe "Higher Law," and
the "law of public necessity," It cro-wns Guiteau — tbe assassin
of Garfield — ^with the halo of martyrdom. It leaves no trace
of Christianity but tbe one saying of Christ, "I come to bring
the sword." By hiring slaves to kill their masters, it raises
to the level of civilized warfare and of humanity the enlistment
of Indians — one of the. strongest counts in the indictment of
King George TIT, by our forefathers. The contemplated mas
sacre to follow the Proclamation of Emancipation sinks the
massacre of Huguenots on Bartholomew's Day by Charles IX,
to the negligible incidents in a brawl on the streets of
Verona between armed adherents of tbe houses of Montague
and Capulet, It gives to John Brown the credit due to an hum
ble servant, who, without question, obeys tbe "Higher Law" of
his master, Tbe order to shoot and kill as traitors and spies all
peaceable men tilling the soil to feed their babes, behind or
within the lines of federal troops, brands the forehead of the
Commander-in-Chief, who proclaimed to the world, in order to
deceive Europe, that he was only trying to enforce the laws
of the Union and to quell an insurrection, as the most infamous
liar and the most brutal assassin in all history. The commander-
in-Chief of millions of troops composed in part, as stated by
one of his abettors, "of wretched vagabonds of depraved
morals, disorderly, thievish, without self-respect or conscience,"
who, with bayonets drove defenseless and helpless women and
children from their homes in Atlanta into the woods, burned
their dwellings and all they owned, then cut a swath of ruin
through Georgia by the torch, robbing all valuables, killing all

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 377
cattle, hogs and horses they could not carry, spreading such
desolation that women and children fought off starvation by
picking from the dirt tbe few grains of corn his horses had
slobbered over ; who, tramping through CaroUna, robbed, burnt
everything in his path that fire can destroy ; -who, after days and
nights of looting and rapine in Columbia, set tbe torch to and
used that fair city as a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of
smoke by day in his onward march of continued desolation —
aU these deeds of savagery just to quell an insurrection, — ^this
hero has but one prototype. Nature unable to create such
a monster, it required the unfettered genius and fertile imagin-
i ation of Milton to fashion bim. This Arch-enemy of the human
race — ^Anarch called by demons damned — shouted to Satan in
his envious flight to compass the world in ruin — ^"Go! and
speed ! Havoc, and spoil, and ruin, are my gain !"

CHAPTER LII.
NORTHERN FAITHLESSNESS AND
LAWLESSNESS.
We have traced the hostility of the North against the South
from the first Congress in 1789, when petitions for tbe abolition
of slavery began, to the culmination Pf the ferocity and madness
of fanaticism when it repudiated the only bond that brought
and held together the States of tbe Union, That bond was one
of brotherhood. It was made by thirteen Sovereigns. We have
read the reasons that induced those Sovereigns to form that
Union. We know that the Union could not bave been formed,
without a pledge of faith and honor to* protect that species of
property called slaves. That pledge was deliberately, solemnly
given. That pledge was as deliberately and solemnly broken
by a majority of the Northern States. It was broken by de
liberate and solemn legislation. It was broken thousands of
times by organizations formed for tbe theft of Southem prop
erty and by mob violence on Northern soil. When that faith
and honor were pledged, slavery existed in all the States. If
it was "tbe spawn of HeU" the men who made that bond knew
it as well as their wise children. Why did they not refuse then
to protect it? As the Southern States refused to unite with the
Northern States without that protection, why did the Northern
States not refuse to be parties to the Union ? It must be borne
in mind steadfastly that the only obligation between the South
and tbe North was that written agreement called tbe Constitu
tion. One of-the several weaknesses in bis debate with Calhoun
was Webster's quibbling on the word Constitution, Had that
instrument been gifted with articulate tongue it could have
overwhelmed him while torturing it, by crying out — "I am
what I am ! I am what your fathers begat. My baptism did
not change my nature, nor my speech. Baptize me Constitu
tion, or Covenant, or Compact, or Agreement, or Partnership —
but my spirit, my soul, my voice, my thoughts, you cannot
change."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 379
Tn 1833, Massachusetts, as usual, took the lead in the deeds
of lawlessness that finally culminated in fratricidal, war. In
Boston, an anti-slavery society was formed with Arnold Buf-
fum, la Quaker, as president. Boston was followed in 1833 by
"The American Anti-slavery Society" in Philadelphia, Arthur
Tappan, president. From that date other societies sprang up
like shoots of asparagus. In the American Cyclopedia (head,
"Slavery, "-page 712) compiled by two sons of New England,
George Ripley and Charles A. Dana, we read that these socie
ties "by means of lectures, nevmpapers, tracts, public meetings
and petitions to Congress, produced an intense excitement
throughout tbe country, the effects of which were soon mani
fest in tbe religious sects and political parties." Tn 1840, "The
American and Foreign Anti-islavery Society," of mammoth pro
portions, took the field. Tn 1844 this society resolved that "the
so-called compromises of the Constitution were immoral, and
that it was wrong to swear to support the Constitution, or to/
hold office, or to vote under it." We see here, fanaticism in a
spasm of Repudiation. Quoting still from tbe Cyclopedia we
read : "From that time these abolitionists avowed it to be their
object to effect a dissolution of tbe Union, and the organization
of a Northern republic where no slavery should exist." Here
is fanaticism advocating the doctrine that Lincoln denounced
"as the essence of Anarchy" — Secession! Tn 1855 Boston
moved up and again took tbe lead. She formed "The American
Abolition Society" to promote the view that Congress bad
power to abolish slavery in every part of the Union. This was
as sweeping as even Lincoln could desire.
Tbe Northern Churches then aroused and shook themselves.
They organized the "Church Anti-slavery Society, to convince
the Churches and ministers that slavery is a sin, and to induce
them to take the lead in the work of abolition." Here we see
reUgious fanaticism, checked by the Constitution, rushing on
in another course and seizing hold of slavery to feed upon. By
this time the entire atmosphere from Maine to the Pacific was
a boiling, seething, roaring, leaping, forked-tongued flame of
fanaticism. Now and then there were explosions, seen by tbe
world; as when Henry Ward Beecher used his pulpit as an
"auction pen," and lacting as auctioneer, or slave trader, he

380 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
sold to the highest bidder an escaped negro girl ; or when Rev.
Theodore Parker converted his dwelling into a den for fugitive
slaves and shipped them to England; or when Boston put on
mourning and denied to the light of Heaven entrance to her
holy dwellings, as the fugitive negro. Bums, was escorted to
tbe ship ; and when the western Judge demanded to be shown a
title-deed signed and sealed by God Almighty; and when the
Dred Scott decision of the United States Supreme Court
dropped on the burning atmosphere. These and hundreds of
other explosions occurred before the armed invasion of Virginia
by John Brown was made and he was hanged. Fanaticism, so
furious before, now, in a transport of rage and sacrilege, seized
hold of tbe thief and hundred-fold murderer, and assassin, and
raising him aloft in Beecher 's Tabernacle and Faneuil Hall,
cried — "Behold this murdered martyr! His death on the gal
lows has made it as holy as tbe cross was made by the cruci
fixion of Christ!"
By this time at least 30,000 slaves had been stolen and
rushed through to Canada. This estimate of the number is
given by the two Abolitionists, Ripley and Dana, in their Cyclo
pedia, page 712, under "Slavery." Tbe number stolen that
were hidden in the States is not given, and will never be known.
Still, the market value of the 30,000 at the fair average of
$500.00 each, was $15,000,000. But the value of the property
stolen and refused return by the Northern nullifying Statutes
called "Personal Liberty Laws" is a matter of small moment.
The all important and the vital question was tbe perfidy and
dishonor demonstrated by the lawless method of effecting the
loss to tbe South. It was an unmistakable signal of danger to
and destruction of three biUions of her property ; of the rain of
her system of labor, and of the upheaval of her social order by
turning loose four millions of semi-savages to prey upon her.
We bave bad but a glimpse at the social, political and religious
conditions throughout the Northern States up to the year 1860
— ^the year when the hour and the man had come, the man who
was to consummate what the fanatics bad toiled and prayed
for, and during sixty years bad sacrificed their honor to accom
plish. And, let it be said, that no tool was ever better fashioned
to effect a nefarious purpose than the one those raving devotees

, TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 381
selected. There was method in their madness, and cunning in
his method. Before he bad worked out their design he held the
poisoned chalice to their lips and forced them to drink of it.
His despotism in the South bad its counterpart in his tyranny
over the North. His memory is immortal, for his enduring
monument is built of the bones of a million men slaughtered at
his command. He is remembered at the crack of every gun in
the hands of his freedmen as a Saxon is murdered. He is re
membered when tbe wail of eveiy woman in the deadly grip of
a lustful freedman breaks on the air and appeals to Heaven.
The tears wrung from tbe burning eyes of a miUion vridows and
orphans will keep in perpetual verdure bis unforgotten grave.
The aching sighs, tbe wailing sorrow, tbe moans of anguish, of
a million mothers and daughters mingled in discord, will for
ever chant his requiem.

CHAPTER LHI,
RIOT OF LAWLESSNESS AND
CORRUPTION— PROFIT AND
LOSS OF THE WAR.
We come now to the business side of the war waged by
Lincoln for Abolition. To get a balance sheet we must add up
the debit and the credit columns — ^then determine the profit or
loss — ^the solvency or bankruptcy as the figures may testify.
This is a gruesome task, but it is fit that the debtor shall make
an exhibit to tbe creditor-world. The creditor has long since
made bis estimate. The Christian world has footed up its loss
— in part. The moralist has approximated bis loss. Widows
and orphans bave suffered their incalculable loss. Cripples,
witb legs and arms left in ditches and trenches, or on mountain
and plain, as meat for vultures, turn their sad eyes to the bat
tlefields as they limp and halt, stumble and fall — ^in hourly re
membrance of their loss. Mourners go about the streets, pro
claiming to the passer-by and idle loungers at doors and
windows, in the mute eloquence of sable) what they bave lost.
But those are only fragmentary particles of the vast ruin scat
tered at our feet as tbe Temple fell. That we may reckon the
magnitude of tbe rain wrought by a Pagan Despot, we must
draw near and view the foundation, the massive pillars, the
architrave, shattered dome, broken arches, the Parian frieze,
cornice, delicately chiseled tracery, its thirty-six separate regal
chambers, all of one incomparable and unprecedented archi
tecture, in the touch of whose builders the wisest men claim to
find genius inspired by a Spirit not of earth, each glorious in
beauty and strength as the temple of Minerva. Let us drop all
figurative speech, and leaving out of the calculation the minor
items of doUars and cents, look only at millionary values.
First, what is the gain? There is but one item. It is freo'
dom for the negroes. Who can estimate the value of that gain
— even to the negro? Has freedom proved a blessing to the

TRUE VINDiqATION OF THE SOUTH 383
physical man? In slavery they were immune to the White
Plague. As freemen, more die, by near two to one of the white
race, of consumption, pneumonia, and of tbe numerous class of
diseases tbat are caused and accelerated by exposure, dissipa
tion, drunkenness, fever, lack of clothing and proper nourish
ment, and of medical treatment and nursing. In Northern
cities — ^Philadelphia for instance — a large percentage are circu
lating pestilence of venereal diseases that are destroying white
and black. This is the result of social equality and of legalized
and illicit miscegenation in all tbe Northern provinces, which,
before Lincoln, were States or Nations.
What of bis morality? During slavery bis natal African
qualilJies, sucb as thievery and lust, were repressed — ^kept under
control. Now they have full play. Tn slavery he was not known
as a rapist. Now, he is a terror in every province, county, city
and neighborhood — combining stealing, rape, lawlessness and
murder. As a laborer — ^producer — tbe male is estimated, in the
aggregate, at fifty per cent, of his efficiency as a slave; the
women at much less.
Those who worship Mammon point with exultation at the
rapid accumulation of our billions as a marvelous and incal
culable gain. They are the materialists — "the calculators" — •
denounced by Edmund Burke. ' ' Of what worth is it to a man
to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" What is the
gain to a country where "wealth accumulates and men decay?"
These Mammonites see no decay. There is no wand like a
golden wand to dazzle the eye. In proof of their social pollu
tion, after a few lines of preface, we will tWow on the canvas
a moving picture of living scenes throughout tbe Northern
States— beginning vrith the advent of their heroic saint, Abra
ham Lincoln — ^that may recall tbe leprous dungeon so graphic
ally depicted in "Ben Hur."
From the first Congress, in 1789, to 1860, the govemment
was in control of Whigs and Democrats— excepting two Feder
aUst administrations. Durmg those seventy years corraption
in high federal stations was unknown. In the Southern States,
from Governor down to tbe lowest office under the State, and
in municipalities, personal honor obtained. When men in high
places were abused, the provocation was political and not per-

384 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
sonal dishonor. As already shown, throughout the Free States,
for forty years, systematic theft by individuals, by men and
women in organization, was openly carried on in sight of their
children. What they stole was property. Their fathers and
grandfathers sold negroes as property, and took the price — as
of a horse, a house, or land. Their children knew all that.
They were housed, clothed, fed and educated by that blood
money, and they knew. it. Their children, witnesses to the
theft, when arrived at the age of moral consciousness, remem
bered this lawlessness; and, as father and mother had by ex
ample taught them, they drew no broad line between what was
property on opposite banks of the Ohio River, or on the two
sides of an imaginary line dividing two States. The lesson by
example is more impressive than by precept. The warning
voice of tbe preacher pounding the pulpit is forgotten — ^yes, it
is jeered and ridiculed — when he is caught secretly treading
"the primrose path of dalliance." With these words, whose
truth is blazoned on the pages of the Bible and so deeply rooted
in human nature as to be known by the heathen, we proceed
with the canvas.
The Republicans — ^successors to and children of the Abbli- ,
tionists who had stolen the negroes — came into full control of
the federal government, and, of course, of its treasury, in March
1861. In 1862 tbe revelry began — but unUke that "in Belgium's
capital," it was not by night, and there was no audible sound.
The ball was opened by the passage of a law to charter the
Union and the Central Pacific Railroad Companies. From lack
of space we must omit details and skip a year or two and come
to the hilarity of the play, Tbe corporators of the two Com
panies went back to Congress with the sad statement that they
could not float their bonds, but that another flnancial agent
could, provided Congress would pass a law authorizing the
Secretary of the Treasury to indorse them. The flnancial agent
paraded under tbe alluring foreign name of "The Credit Mob
ilier." The personnel of this many-headed foreign flnancial
giant were not visible to Congress. The law was passed and the
taxpayers were put in for $32,000,000 with interest for thirty
years. Around the year 1871 a disgruntled grafter, who had
not gotten bis share of tbe swag, filed a Bill in Chancery in

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 385

Philadelphia, in which he, as tbe modern political figure runs,
"took off the lid" and gave the taxpayers a retrospect at their
first Republican Congress. Tbe revelation called for a spasm
of Republican virtue. A committee of each House of Congress
was appointed. Each committee caught some big fish in its net
who were of each House. They unveiled tbe foreign Financial
Agent and discovered tbe familiar faces of the few gentlemen
who were the corporators of the two railroads. They were the
great Credit Mobilier. They had sold tbe bonds to themselves.
These Republican children of the parents — ^Abolitionists —
who bad stolen tbe negroes, had as Congressmen been buying
from and selling to eaeh other. The buyers — with noticeable
instinct — selected a member of the House, a Puritan from
Massachusetts, named Oakes Ames, Some preferred stock,
some bonds, of the Companies ; and some, like Judas, preferred
the jingling coin. One United States Senator, Wm. A. Patter
son of New Hampshire, was found in the net of Ames. The
Senate Committee investigated the charge. He was so far im
plicated tbat be was called before tbe Committee in his own
defense. Then foUowed a drama tbat is, probably, without a
paraUel in any deliberative body. Senator Patterson came be
fore the Committee and took a seat at the end of the long table
opposite the Chairman — Senator Lett Morrill of Maine. The
Chairman stated the charges, and then asked: "What say you
to the charges?" Answer: "I am not guilty." Question:
"You did not receive any valuable consideration for your vote
as Senator on the passage of the bill for the Govemment to
indorse the Pacific RaUroad bonds S"
Answer: "I did not."
Question: "You received neither money, nor stock, nor
bonds of those Companies, or either of them?"
Answer: "I did not."
"You are discharged. Senator, from further attendance on
the Committee to-day," said the Chairman, )
Oakes Ames, was then called before the Committee,
"Mr, Ames," said the Chairman, "Senator Patterson has
sworn before the Committee that he received nothing of any
kind for his vote on the Pacific-bonds BiU. Have you anything
further to say?"

386 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Ames's right hand dived down in his side coat-pocket, and
that Uttle deadly demon — a briber's memorandum book — ^rose
at the touch of his fingers. He turned it affectionately, looked
at it a moment, then handed it to the Chairman, who passed the
Uttle dumb vritness to tfie other Senators. Patterson wac
again called in ; the Chairman passed the little assassin to Pat
terson and asked :
"Senator Patterson, is that your signature?"
Patterson glanced at the page and his eyes tumed to the
floor and bis head slowly drooped forward. The Chairman,
deeply moved by sympathy and distress, remained sUent. Every
eye in the room was riveted on the doomed man. At length,
the Chairman, recovering again, asked; "Is that or is not that
your signature ? ' '
Patterson neither replied, nor raised his head or eyes —
"That will do, Senator, You can retire," said the Chairman,
The Committee, within a few days, made their report to tbe
Senate. Chairman Morrill said, in brief —
"Your Committee, to whom was assigned the duty to inves
tigate certain charges against Wm, A. Patterson, a member of
this Body, beg leave to report that, after a full examination
of the evidence, they, by unanimous vote, have found Senator
Patterson guilty. Painful as your Committee have felt tha
discharge of this duty to be, we are constrained to say that
grievous as we hold the offense of bribery to be, we are com
pelled to report that we have found him guilty of a much
graver crime. It is the crime of perjury committed by him
when examined by your Committee,"
Senator Patterson's time of office would expire within two
weeks from the date of the Report of guilty. Through pity and
by common consent, it was agreed not to expel him, and to let
the Report "lie on the table," Patterson was a Puritan, He
had been a Professor in a CoUege in New Hampshire, was a
member of a Puritan Church or Congregation and was regarded
by all, who thought they knew him, as an exemplary Christian.
While this Republican investigation of Republicans was
in progress another "Ud blew off," and below was found an
army of these chUdren, who, by theu- old Fagin fathers, had
been taught the fine art of stealing. To raise money to pay

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 887
the deluded Northern soldiers who were told by Lincoln and
Seward they were patriots and heroes, fighting to save the
Union and their own freedom. Congress passed the Internal
Revenue Law, which some, irreverent of Congress — dubbed tbe
Infernal Revenue Law, The main product taxed by it w^s
whiskey. The officers to collect the tax covered the land. They
had not forgotten the teaching by their fathers, and they soon
put it into practice, A combination was formed — ^that stretched
nearly across the Continent — to steal the tax. It was branded,
after discovery, "The Whiskey Ring," As the North, and not
the South, was 'the loser, an investigation was set on foot. It
resulted in criminal prosecutions in the federal courts. Some
were convicted, some fled, and some "got off," One, named
McDonald, was sent to the pen, in Missouri, and while serving
his term wrote a book as an expose of the "Ring," He believed,
he had been made a scape-goat by those who, equally guilty, had
found ' ' favor at Court ' ' and had ' ' got off, ' * His exposure lays
bare a prevalence of corraption in the patriots and heroes who
saved the Union, Men in bigh places were after the coveted
graft. Tbe smeU of whiskey was traced into the White House.
Grant was President. He was not involved in the fraud — but
one of bis poUtical family in tbe White House was. It was of
these prosecutions Grant said — "Let no guilty man escape."
About tbe same date another small lid blew off. It covered
the trifling sum of seven milUon dollars and was confined to
Washington. Congress had made a large appropriation to be
spent in and on tbe City. One Sheppard was at the head of
the MunicipaUty. He was called "Boss Sheppard." His brain
evolved magnificent ideas and he planned a magnificent ex
penditure to extend streets, excavate and fill in— to plant trees
—to pave and lay sidewalks. In some mysterious manner, by
hook or by crook — or by crooks — seven million dollars disap
peared. A furious spasm of virtue seized the town. Even
Congress was apparently indignant at the "blow off." A
Committee was appomted to find the hole that had swallowed
the taxpayers' money. Sheppard was notified to give his ex
perience, but before tbe Committee could arrange to hear it
they learned that "Boss Sheppard" was in Mexico. There he

388 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
managed — ^in some way unkno-wn to gentlemen — in ' a strange
land, without money or credit, to buy a large silver mine, which,
it is reported, he worked to great profit,
Schuyler CoKax, Vice-President of the United States under
Grant, and, of course. President of the Senate, was discovered
to be among those tainted statesmen. But he was not tried
and punished. He was permitted to die "unwept, unhonored
and unsung."
James G. Blaine, the Plumed Knight of the North, first a
member of the House, then Speaker of the House ; next a U.
S. Senator, and afterwards the Republican nominee for Presi
dent, was caught with some valuable bonds obtained, it was
alleged, while Speaker, Hie was the writer of the so-called
"Mulligan letters," that he requested the friend to whom they
were written to burn. But the friend neglected to do that favor,
and the lettei's, in Blaine's campaign against Grover Cleveland
in 1884, proved a millstone around his neck, and he sank to
rise no more. It was during that campaign that Roscoe Conk
ling, ex-Senator from New York,, when urged by Blaine's
friends to stump the State of New York for him, informed them
that he "had quit the criminal practice,"
In 1876-^the centenary of Tbe Declaration of Independence,
which is still revered by a few who observe it mournfully, as
tender, loving hearts cherish the birthday of their beloved dead
long after they have passed away — a U. S. Senator, CaldweU,
of Kansas, was charged with bribery in buying his seat in the
Senate. The proof was at hand, but he prudently and consid
erately, to save the Senate the formality and expense of an
investigation, immediately forwarded by telegram, his resigna
tion to the Governor of Kansas, and silently stole away. Just
before Caldwell's begira, one Powell Clajrton, a carpetbagger,
who wjth his harpy cohorts had descended on Arkansas, and
by a white, black and tan legislature, had been sent to the
U, S, Senate, was accused by other carpetbaggers with buying
his seat. The writer was the one Democrat of the Committee
of investigation. The testimony was positive, but the Senate
failed to give the required two-thirds vote. He was one of the
patriots who h^d contributed an arm to the cause during Lin
coln's effort "to suppress an insurrection" covering eleven

TRUE VINDICATION OF TSE SOUTH 389
States, This, at that time — (only 8 years after the skrimmage)
was a certificate of good character throughout the North. One
empty sleeve won the battle. Moreover, Clayton was a shrewd
vrire-puller, and was considered necessary to Republican domi
nation over Arkansas, When the Democrats drove him and his
land pirates from office he was held in such affection that a
Republican President and Senate sent him as Minister to
Mexico,

CHAPTER UV.
THIEVING, SWINDLING, BRIBERY, PER
JURY, AND GENERAL CORRUPTION
RAMPANT IN THE "PARTY OF
HIGH MORAL IDEAS."
As soon as "tbe insurrection" extending over 789,,568 square
miles had been "suppressed," tbe conquerors, actuated by their
own honesty, and, also, by love of tbe freedmen and a phUan-
thropic impulse to save them from robbery by the "Rebels,"
hastened to pass an Act in Congress to establish "The Freed
men 's Bureau." It was speedily organized over aU the "Rebel
States." Following Gen. Washington's patriotic example when
he issued the order to "put none but Americans on guard to
night," the "Party of Moral Ideas" selected none but good men
and true — all being Republicans, and, a fortiori, honest — to pro
tect their wards from robbery, or burglary of the Bureau by
the "Rebels." Gen. 0, 0, Howard, one of Lincoln's choicest
generals to "suppress the insurrection," and an exemplar in
"Moral Ideas," as well as a shining Christian, was placed at
the bead of this Freedmen 's Bureau. A large brick building
for headquarters was erected on F. Street, Washington, front
ing South, opposite the Treasury Department. Sambo and
Diana, Hannibal and old Aunt Judy, Caesar and Venus, Pom-
pey and Priscilla, Scipio and Susannah — ^in short, all the African
wards — were assembled and instructed to deposit their dollars,
dimes and pennies in the thousand Freedmen 's Banks over the
South for safe-keeping. They gladly obeyed, and aU "went
merry as a marriage bell" for a few years.
One bright morning tbe whole North was apparently
shocked by the announcement tbat "The Freedmen 's Bureau
was dead broke." (Millions of dollars had suddenly disap
peared — no one could tell bow. Tbe confiding wards were told,
as an explanation, that the vast amount of their gold bad
knocked the bottom out of the Bank. While tbe negroes' pen-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 391
nies were supposed to be safely cribbed, a negro college was
built in Washington, It was christened "Howard" University
— in honor of thfe General whose "Moral Ideas," so exalted,
- had induced the selection of tbe General to stand guard over
the millions that were the bard-earned wealth of the wards he
had risked his Christian life to free. A casual peep into the
vaults of the Bank revealed the astonishing fact that a part of
the negroes' money, over which he, like a Cherub with the
flaming sword, had stood as sentinel, bad been abstracted by
his right hand, while his left, for a moment, held the flaming
sword pointing at the "Rebels," But this trifling incident was
passed over when tbe General, in his innocency, explained that
he bad only robbed Peter to pay Paul; tbat is, be bad made an
equitable arrangement by having all the negro depositors make
an involuntary contribution of their money to a select few of
their kin, to be educated at Howard University, in Latin, Greek,
trigonometry, infinitesimal, calculus, differentials, conic sections
and football.
There is still another lofty peak to be observed, over which
proudly flaunted the Puritan and RepubUcan banner embla
zoned with their motto— "Moral Ideas," As this, also, was
seen under Grant's Administration, it proves tbat after this
Party of Moral Ideas got its hand on the helm of State there
was no time lost in attending strictly to business. Another of
Lincoln's mighty generals — Wm. W, Belknap — ^now steps into
the Umeligbt as Secretary of War under President Grant. After
"the insurrection bad been quelled," Lmcoln's troops, except
those who were left in the South to bold the Rebels down
while the carpetbaggers went through their pockets, were sta
tioned in the West. Near each camp there was a store wbere
soldiers could trade. The privilege of keeping that store was
very valuable. The Secretary of War had the power to select
the man — a civiUan— for that position. The technical name
was Post-tradership, It is against tbe law for the Secretary to
seU that privUege. Belknap's wife, of extreme Western type,
aspired to reign in Washmgton society— an easy victory with
money, which she bad not, but coveted. News reached Congress
that Belknap bad sold a number of Post-traderships, A com
mittee began to mquire into the facts, Belknap's friends sent

392 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
- ' ' ¦ — ¦ .....   .  f_
a telegram, and he took the next train for Washington, He had
a friend on the committee. He knew every step taken as soon
as the committee adjourned. Several days passed, Belknap
saw Grant, and they arranged for an escape, Wben the com
mittee was ready to make their report to the House, and before
they could act, Belknap rushed to Grant with bis resignation as
Secretary written and ready. In less than a minute Grant had
signed tbe acceptance of the resignation, and, thus, the founda
tion for escape through a technicality was laid. Tbe impeach
ment however, proceeded. The facts were undeniable, but the
brave soldier tried to get away by biding under the skirt of his
wife. She admitted that she negotiated the sales of the trader-
ships. Here was a dilemma, A mighty hero who had com
manded a heterogeneous mass of human bipeds gathered from
the corners of the earth to put down "an insurrection by Saxon
Rebels," some of whom were then judges to sit in judgment
on him and strip the epaulettes and stars from his patriotic
figure — "it would never do ! It must not — shall not — ^be done !"
So his Republican allies filed the plea that the Senate had no
jurisdiction to try him, because, a minute or more before the
House bad voted to impeach him, he had tendered bis resigna
tion to President Grant and it had been accepted. With the
facts indisputable the majority of the Senate (being RepubU-
cans), on this plea of lack of jurisdiction, would not find the
accused. guilty. The trick won. Truly it is a goodly sight to _
see brethren dwell together in unity!
Thus far, under Profit and Loss, we bave limited the view
to a very small number, but they were criminals of the highest
rank. They were trustees of the pubUc— Vice-President, Sena
tors, candidate for President, cabinet ministers, generals, and
custodians of the country's life-blood — money. Near the same
period the country was shocked by another case of bribery and
corraption. It involved the mayor, councU and aldermen of
New York City, Boss Tweed was the- mayor and ring-leader.
He was convicted. So were a few aldermen.
It is impossible, from lack of space, to particularize in so
wide a field of dishonor and corruption, stretching across the
continent from Boston to San Francisco, and up into Oregon.
Under the title of Theft and Larceny after Trast and Embezzle-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 393
ment, a few of the names enlisted under these piratical flags
will be given. No ! for tbe sake of their children, who should
not suffer for the crimes of their fathers, tbe names will be
omitted, and occurrences only given.
The officers of the four big life insurance companies, after
the investigation by the Armstrong Committee of New York,
were convicted of stealing vast sums from their respective com
panies. Some fled to avoid conviction, some committed suicide
and one remains in Europe — ^to avoid the penitentiary. Tbe
Enterprise Bank in Pennsylvania, by its officers completely
looted, so that the Receiver reported that there was nothing
left. Bank officers in New York City stealing the stockholders'
money, and taking promissory notes from their messenger boys
for large sums to represent that much good paper for loans.
Another President of a New York bank embezzled the funds,
and was convicted and sent to the pen, and used tbe money to
bribe physicians to certKy he was slowly dying by an incur
able disease, and on that ground secured a pardon. Now
healthy and strong as a firedog. The President of a bank in
Chicago looted it, was caught, convicted, and is serving his
term in stripes, and is knovra, Uke Jean Valjean, by a number.
The list could be extended into the hundreds. This we have
not space to do. We must now take criminals in groups.
. Who could have imagined that the purest, the chastest, of
aU the provinces — ^the nation's conscience — the paragon of all
perfections — Puritan Massachusetts, would ever be found among
the faUen? When tbe wisest, tbe most virtuous, the exemplar
in morality, ethics and virtue yields to the siren's voice, what
can we expect from the weak, the ignorant, the uncultured and
lowly? "If the righteous can scarcely be saved, where shaU
the ungodly appear? What "a good amendment— from pray
ing to purse-taking ! ' ' Witb this polished pUlar in rains before
us, no tender heart can fail to feel compassion for her weak
sisters and to invoke m their behalf the briUiant defense of Sir
John Falstaff in his own cause. "Dost thou hear, Hal? Thou
know'st in the state Pf innocency Adam feU; and what should
poor Jack Falstaff do in the d?iys of viUainy?" Yes, the legis
lature of Massachusetts was "taken in the act." But under a
convenient shelter erected in that bailiwick— similar to the old

394 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
English law called "taking sanctuary" — tbe guilty hastened to
fly, and, by making confession on oath, they became immune
to punishment.
Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, so rotten for three
decades under the guidance of Matt Quay — a leader of Repub
licans — that the women rose in rebellion, and with the aid of a
few of tbe good men, elected a Reform Government. The
thieves in charge of the water works were poisoning the inhab
itants. A few philanthropists induced an army engineer to
resign from tbe army, to take charge of the engineerfiig depart
ment — by guaranteeing a large salary for five years. But, two
years after, the thieves routed the Reformers, and are again in
the saddle. This brotherly love bears tbe stamp of tbe genuine
Puritan and Lincoln coin, as negro men with white wives live
in brotherly harmony in fashionable quarters — thus demon
strating the sublime exaltation of the Quakers over sucb petty
trifles as social equality and the mixture of white and black
blood. If there could be any one act to extenuate the cruel
and bloody persecution of the Quakers by the Puritans it would
be found in the tolerance by the Quakers of such degradation.
"This is the house that Jack built."
Then comes Pittsburg with a record of crime and corruption
blacker than the soot that forms its perennial covering. A band
of thieves was found wearing the disguise of Councilmen. They
sold everything within their control, including themselves. It
is needless to say they were Republicans — descendants of Lin
coln's patriots who fought to win glory for him as the Great
Emancipator. Another glory due to the Republicans of this
Quaker province under the Empire, blazed out in Harrisburgh
— the Capital. Its flame lighted up the continent and aU of
Europe except Turkey, where its uneffectual light was paled by
a perpetual counter illumination of like character. This typical
Republican condition was discovered in the Capitol Building,
in which architect, contractors, supply-men, decorators, experts
in statuary, painters, furniture dealers, capitalists and treasurer
— all joined in an attempt to rival the New England Puritans
in piling up the Tariff, The only slight difference in morals
was that the Puritans get Republican Congressmen to do the
stealing, while the Republican State-house buUders did their

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH £96
own stealing without employing a middleman. The result was
the same — one by indirection, the other by direction without
lying about it. ' ' This is the house that Jack built. ' '
New York must not be overlooked. About twenty years
ago a Republican legislature appropriated four mUUon doUars
to be expended in buUding a Capitol building at Albany, The
work went bravely on. But, after the building was fairly
started, "the funds gave out," Another appropriation had to
be made. Several millions more were appropriated and, mar
velous to tell, after a little more work, in some mysterious way
"the funds gave out," Still another appropriation, and again
"the funds gave out." Tbe last report, made pubUc a few
years ago, was tbat fourteen millions had been sunk in that
building, and it was not finished. The Capitol at Washington
— ^much larger — under a Democratic administration cost seven
miUion doUars, This (Albany structure) is "the house that
Jack built,"
Chicago followed suit and her trusted guardians began to
rob their wards. Every device known to crooks was brought
into play. They soon achieved for ber the distinction of being
"the wickedest city in the world,"
San Francisco, so far as the outside world knows, was late
in the race, but when she arrived she demonstrated her skUl
in tbe game. Her mayor and the city's legal advisers were
found in tbe lead. The city aldermen were grafters only sec
ond to ber mayor abd her legal counsel, Tbe thieves caught
had friends more zealous than discreet. One tried to assassi
nate tbe prosecuting attorney. He was shot and disabled to
continue the trials, but he at length recovered. Graft, graft,
was levied on every industry and occupation these thieves could
reach. Tbe mayor and city attorney are serving time in the
penitentiary. In Georgia (a State — ^not a petty province like Massachu
setts) in 1889 one million dollars were appropriated to erect a
State House at the Capitol, Five "Traitors,'' who had not
fought under Lincoln, were appointed to superintend the work,
to*purchase material and to audit bills. When the contractors
tumed over the keys to those "Traitors" representing the
State, of the one million dollars there was a balance left in the

396 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
treasury. Those "Traitors" bad not been taught by their
parents and their teachers and preachers the art of stealing.
This is not "the bouse that Jack built." They were not fanatics.
With them Avarice was not an innate, ethnic passion. They
were not Puritans. They were not Republicans. They had no
parents and teachers and preachers and Beechers and Theodore
Parkers and other Fagins, to set them the example.
But this Republican corruption was so wide it is of little use
to consume time on special instances. We wUl now take a
glimpse at the mass, by noticing a few of the separate fields in
which the different classes of criminals have operated. That
the tariff has been the matrix of the -wealth of this country no
one whpse opinion is entitled to consideration vrill deny. That
this incalculable wealth has been cribbaged by only ten thou
sand of the 90,000,000 people is indisputable. That it has been
thus gathered in by methods — ^whether or not allowed by law
— that have been no higher than cheating and swindling, is
another fact no one but the cheats and swindlers wiU deny.
Only a few of these methods need be mentioned.
The legalized gambling Exchanges in the large cities, the
systematic wrecking of corporations, chiefly railroads, by the
sandbag blow or by chloroform, or by the garrote. This method
of killing is so gentle and skilKul as to be classed with the fine
Arts. Tbe wreckers purchase a majority of the stock — thus
getting the directorship — ^the property run do-wn — pass di-vi-
dends — buy the depreciated bonds^default on the interest —
then foreclose, seU at a song — ^pay the price in the preferred
bonds — vripe out all stockholders — and finish the steal made,
according to law, by capitalizing tbe new organization at 3, 4
or 6 times the original sum; sell the new bonds at par and a
part of the stock, while holding the remainder as clear profit.
On this 2, 4 or 6 hundred per cent, watered stock the public
pays big dividends.
Gold mines, silver, copper, iron, lead and coal mines' ex
ploited by lying representatives to lure and then to rob con
fiding investors.
Immensely valuable franchises secured by bribing legisla
tors and city councils and aldermen.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 897
"There be land thieves and there be water thieves," Some
Republican gentry have a weakness to be large land-owners.
The public lands being reserved for settlers and only a quarter
section, or 160 acres, being purchasable, and only on condition
that the buyer occupy and build on it, the land thieves employ
men to commit perjury in pre-empting land and then conveying
it to them. Many million acres have thus been acquired. In
this widespread thievery a United States Senator from Oregon
and another from Kansas were caught.
Under Republican rule Congress has established a banking
system by which six men in Wall Street can within one day
create a money panic. These philanthropists, in 1907, before
the country bad risen to its knees from the panic of 1903, con
spired to gulp a competitor, and to cripple it they started a
panic by ealUng in loans. They then approached the White
House, where was stabled the wildest unbroken Broncho in the
land. They whispered some magic words in his ear that, for a
minute, so tamed him, that they rode him so joyfully they con
sented to stop their own panic. They may, because they could,
have whispered — "We have under our control the Black
Plague, If you do not let us ride you, we intend to turn it
loose on the whole people. If you let us ride you, we will be
humane enough to let but a few people die."
The Republican Congresses have been but machines in the
hands of beneficiaries of tbe Tariff. Every one sat down in his
velvet chair and calculated what per cent, be supposed the
Northern patriots would stand. The "Rebels" were not con
sidered, as they were tied to the stake in 1865, and kicking by
them was only amusement for these patriots. Each one would
then step up and turn the crank, and his per cent., Uke chewing
gum after tbe nickel is dropped in the slot, would drop out.
The only shibboleth to pass the stream and get to the machine
was to whisper the amount be had given to keep the machine
oiled and running. Under this infamous system of highway
robbery by what was called law, brother would drive brother
to the wall and rain bim and bis wife and children ; or a few
men, to keep down supply, would buy out competitors, or lease
their plants for years, and close them ; and after robbing the
helpless millions in America these robbers would ship their sur-

398 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
plus to distant lands, pay freight, commissions and port charges,
and sell to foreigners cheaper than to the patriots and "Rebels"
at home. But there are things in this life dearer than the Union. One
is Justice. Another is Liberty. And tbe western patriots after
having been luUed to sleep by the flattering tune of "Saviors
of the Union," began to wake up and inquire whence came
those Boporiflc, dulcet strains. Aft-er forty years of this lullaby,
they asked — "Did our fathers fight and die to establish a des
potism by Eastern millionaires — the most contemptible of all
rulers — a moneyed aristocracy?" And they rose in their might
in 1912 to get at this Juggernaut — ^this Congressional, auto
matic machine. In the fury of crying ' ' Tyrant ' ' they forgot for
a few seconds the word — their old slogan — ' 'Rebels. ' ' Ye gods !
— what agony they must have suffered — ^thus to lose all memory !

CHAPTER LV.
THE SOCIAL LOSS.
After the mere glance taken at the financial loss, we wiU
take a brief view of the Social loss. Were it not for the vast
difference in the peoples of the two distinct geographic divisions
— the South and the North — the contrast in the social conditions
of each would be amazing, A century ago the North was over-
whelmmgly Puritan, the South almost entirely Cavalier, Dur
ing and since the war the South was and is homogeneous, the
North was and is essentially heterogeneous. The South was
agricultural, the North was commercial and maritime — especial
ly in New England. The morals of the women of that section,
before the war, is vividly portrayed by Dr. Sanger in his
astounding book entitled ' ' History of Prostitution. ' ' What was
terrible then is a hundred-fold worse now. It is needless to
dweU on this single social status. It can be summed up in those
three appalUng words that but a few years past were assembled
in such graphic horror — as if the medical world by unanimous
voice were to diagnose an entire nation as dying from leprosy.
Those triple Furies are — the "White Slave Trade." There was
no pollution in the pagan world that approached, in shame,
degradation, and power for national ruin, this deadly virus in
the body of a Christian people.
This — the social — ^loss by the war caimot be measured nor
estimated. It was one of tbe mad dreams of the Abolitionists
that the Southem men and women would sink under the burden
bound on their backs by Emancipation. This expectation has
tumed to ashes on their lips.\ Self-absorbed — with noses to the
ground, scenting for doUars — ^they never looked up to take the
measure of the, white man of the South. They could only see
the negro. They turned the table on themselves when, in their
madness, they chose the negro as their company, Tbe negro,
with all his cranial limitations, is a shrewd observer and reader
of faces and character. In his subordinate position as a slave
this talent was cultivated beyond that of the master. It was
his protection from imposition. When the carpet-baggers

400 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
swarmed through the South he read them at a glance. He knew
they were of low origin. He had two standards for judging
the quality of his deliverers — one was tbe rank and file of the
army, the other, the carpetbaggers who succeeded the men vrith
the guns. By them be judged the people who sent the soldiers
to kill and tbe carpetbaggers to rob. As soon after freecjom as
they could gather enough to pay for transportation they sought
tbe land where equality, political and social, would be their
own. And they have not been disappointed. They have been
received with open arms. There is no distinction. Race and
color are no bar to society, AU are brothers and sisters. The
table of the rich is spread for tbe negro, Tbe white man is
just as much a gentleman as the negro. The white lady is on
a par with the "colored lady," They sit together as cosily —
chat as merrily — as if all were bom in Africa,
The three amendments to the Constitution, adopted for the
special benefit of the negro, have turned, like the boomerang,
to strike the heads that devised and the hands that projected
them. The negro is not fastidious in choice of his residence.
He does not object to snuggling by the side of or next door to
a millionaire, and the millionaire must grin and endure it or
move away. He has no objection to marrying a millionaire's
daughter — especially of one who paid a Hessian a thousand
dollars bounty to murder his neighbors while he sold shoddy
supplies to the government and made his mUlions. Why should
not the negro show his gratitude by marrying the daughter?
When his white friends pay big prices for a seat to see a negro
pugilist beat up a white man, and the negro grows rich, why
should he not spend a few thousands to ^ive bis white friends
the pleasure of his company and that d.. bis white wife on the
shore of Lake Geneva., and take a dip therein with them ?
This is not the only blessing of the three negro amendments.
They bave reached out and are blessing far away Boston, There
the negro demanded equality in a',1 social gatheimgs, functions,
and in conveyances at entertainments, in gymnasiums — in short,
in any place his white equal can go. Having conquered the
Whites fn the society tilt, be has entered the field of business.
He now demands of merchants, tradesmen and others in Boston
who employ help that no distinction shaU be made in color or

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 401
race. If a white man is needed as a clerk, or salesman, the
negro must not be given a positon as porter. He must be a
salesman. The three negro amendments tell the merchants
there must be no color line drawn — what is good for the goose
is good for the gander— what is best for the white shaU be given
to- the negro. The three negro amendments — the logical effect
of Boston's crusade for abolition — ^are going back home to bless
her as she delights to be blessed — tbat is, in loss of money. In
1900 her exports amounted to $112,195,555. In 1912 her ex
ports amounted to $69,692,171 — a loss of 61 per cent.
In 1900 Savannah's eports were $38,251,981, Tn 1912 Savan
nah's exports were $104,266,295 — a gain of 173 per cent.
As New England never fails to get what she wants, it is fair
to presume she does not want any exports. As she worked
furiously for fifty years, and fought for four years, for social
equaUty with the negro, and as she got it, it is fair to presume
that she desired it. This is another of her successive and un
broken line of triumphs.
In tbe second chapter the names afSxed to counties, towns
and postoffices by tbe Puritans in Massachusetts were put in
evidence to prove tbat they have little, if any, respect and rev
erence for their mighty ones' of old. They either lack that
pride of ancestry which prompts children of other nations to
perpetuate the names of their glorious dead by association with
inanimate objects, or they were sublimated above such sublun
ary artifice. This singularity of the Puritans is recalled because
it seems to be progenitor to another phase of tbe same indiffer
ence to ancestry as well as to posterity. In this latter view is
involved aU the fanatics who swarmed out like bees from New
England 's hive aU over the West during sixty years before the
Abolition War.
The Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Carthagenians,
came in contact with the negro for thousands of years, (count
ing the Egyptians) , They are glibly reckoned as Pagans. There
may have been illicit admixture, to a small degree, of the negro
vrith one or more of those nationalities. But they had laws to
regulate marriage and by those laws marriage with negroes was
not permitted. Pagans though they might have been — even
though they were — ^yet they had that virtue, pride of race. They

402 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
did not become mulattoized. Through wealth, the White
Plague of Nations — ^followed by ease, luxury, indolence, dissipar
tion, individual flaccidity that became national (the tubercular
symptoms) — ^they became degenerate and feU a prey to robust,
younger neighbors,
' ' There is the moral of all human tales,
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom, and then glory, wben that fails.
Wealth, vice, corruption — ^barbarism at last,"
If there be any social condition more horrible, and demon
strative of a people's decay, than the White Slave Trade, it is
to be found in the loss next to be considered. And that it is the
legitimate offspring of Lincoln's insane ambition to involve the
States in war, in order to reach his heart's desire — ^to be the
Great Emancipator, his only chance to escape dumb oblivion —
is as trae as that religious fanaticism is remorsel*ess, and is blind
to consequences. This subject is the social condition in the
North between the negro and the White races. In order to
present this vital question in its true light, a brief retrospect
will be helpful.
There are but three distinct divisions of the human race —
the White, Black and Brown, The White and Black are as dis
tinct as are the two miscalled colors — ^white and black. The
Brown Race includes Mongols, Malays and Indians, Ethnolo
gists are not decided on even the difference in origin of these
three divisions of the Brown, Recent devlopments by archae
ologists in the two Americas point to unity of the Indian with
the other two divisions of the Brown. The geographic home
of the White race has been in tbe territory known as Europe.
The Aryans, Pelasgians, Assyrians, Jews, Medes, Persians,
Greeks, Romans, and the nomadic tribes known as Goths, Visi
goths, Huns, — were all of the White Race. It is the only race
of diversified individual types. Black eyes and black hair have
uniformly and persistently marked the Black and Brown races.
Physically, the White has been diversified in all the glory of
the rainbow. Hair — ^the ornament that crowns the head — ^is
black, near black, auburn, brown, chestnut, golden, flaxen,
blonde, yellow, red. The eye — ^the mirror of the soul— is black,
dark, hazel, brown, blue, gray, or with little isles of gray an
chored in a sea darkly, beautifully blue.

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 403

This has been, from time immemorial, the conquering race.
Its path has been progress. Its march has been steadily up
ward—rising from the vaUey to tbe world's mountain peaks;
conquerors not of men only, but of nature, subduing nature
without, and making it contributory to man's physical wants,
his pleasure, comfort and luxury; and, likewise, conquering
himself — ^bis natal ferocity, his wild appetite — cultivating and
reflning his crude justice, and as be rose he captured from his
feathered companions their notes of joy floating in the air, the
music and rhythm of the sea, and wove them into the rapturous
melody of song.
From the rushing, roaring, blopdy drama of life he con
densed its essentials and unities and presented them to the eye
to teach the living virtue, honor, reflnement and philosophy.
His is the oiUy eye that God has endowed with appreciation of
the Beautiful; of the harmony of Nature, He alone with crea
tive vision sees tbe exquisite grace, the bewitching figure of a
Venus, Minerva, or Galatea in jthe marble, and bids them come
forth. His race alone has given birth to a Plato, an Aristotle,
a Demosthenes, a Cicero, a Milton, a Shakespeare. From his
race alone sprang an Alexander, Csesar, Hannibal, Washington,
Napoleon, Wellington and Lee. As explorers of the Universe
the White Race alone can caU the roll of tbe Immortals —
Galileo, Newton, Hersehel, and a thousand more scarcely less
distinguished who have made the stars as familiar to us as
household words. And this race in its wanderings for untold
ages, has never, before the last century, debased its blood by
marriage with a negro !
In the seventeenth century the Puritans and Portuguese,
impelled by insatiable avarice, cast their hungry eyes over the
earth to find a field for spoils. Darkest Africa — to use a sole
cism — loomed in sight. God, for a wise purpose unknown to
but surmisable by man, had assigned a continent to the negro
as his separate habitation. He bad walled it in by Earth's wild
est and most forbidding desert, and by two vast oceans. The
Puritans and Portuguese broke through the Western barrier,
and for two hundred years the Atlantic's waves were fretted
into foam by day, and illuminated by phosphorescence at night
by hundreds of Puritan ships packed with negroes in chains.

404 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
making for any port of least supply and greatest demand, to
convert human flesh and blood into gold. During two hundred
years? Yes, and longer. For, in 1830, standing on Plymouth
Rock — tbat sesame that opened the door of Liberty to the Pil
grim Fathers in 1620 — Daniel Webster pointed to factories and
furnaces where manacles and fetters were being forged for the
hands and feet of African victims of Puritan avarice, waiting
three thousand miles away, to be fed to trailing sharks or to be
greeted on New England's shore by ber flag proclaiming liberty
and equality to all men.
It was reserved for the New World, led by New England,
to teach the Old World the advantage, lost by it for so many
ages, of legalizing the commingling of the blood of a black
negro and a woman of the White Race — to stock this "Nation"
with an improved type. It has been truly and justly said by a
wise man tbat he who is clothed with power to prevent crime,
and stands by and sees a crime committed, is responsible for
the crime. A people who bave the power to enact laws to
prevent tbe marriage of negroes and Whites, and refuse to pass
the law, is guilty of the degradation of the woman and of the
White Race, Tbe Northern Pharisees — ^who make broad their
phylacteries and say to the poor Publican, "I am better than
thou," by tbat breath are sowing tbe winds. Let us reason
awhile on this social condition. Laws are not to protect the
strong. Their wisdom is based on the assumption that the strong
can protect themselves. As a rule this is true. But reflection
for a few moments will reveal its fallacy when applied to the
subject now under consideration.
The family is the unit in all societies, all States, all Nations,
When the family, or unit, degenerates, the nation, or society,
necessarily degenerates. The strongest nation is the one com
posed of the strongest units, or families. And the strongest
units, or families are those held together by mutual affection,
love, pride, and personal virtue and honor. In which race are
found these threads that form the bond of family union — the
White or the negro ? It is absurd to make a comparison. When
these qualities belonging to tbe White Race are diluted one
half by negro blood, the unit is weakened one-half and the
nation in the same ratio. The Northern "provinces" are

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 40S
stocked with the most heterogeneous mass of humanity gath
ered together in any part of the earth. There are millions of
immigrants who were little better than slaves; who had no
social rank ; no pride of race, and who affiliate with negroes on
perfect equality. To what that leads no one can be in doubt
who knows the negro.
Again : The danger to Northern society does not rest alone
with immigrants. There are women and girls, of as white blood
as the Northern Pharisees, who have been ground down by the
heel of Avarice — of greed — to the depth of desperation. They
are the class who are driven day and night in mills and fac
tories ; into serving in sweat dens until they have not tbe energy
to sing Hood's "Song of the Shirt." There are hundreds of
thousands of shop girls pinched by poverty and starvation
wages, who, after tbe day's grind, are forced to take the way
that leads down to Hell.

CHAPTER LVI,
WHITE SUBJUGATION.
The only item of profit (if such it be) is freedom for the
negro. The next subject for review is tbe subjugation of the
white race. The first field is the political. It is not necessary
to enter tbe iron gate of Pandemonium tbat tbe Abolitionista-
established, from hatred and venom, over tbe South during the
dictatorship of a mulatto woman, and called "Reconstmiction,"
That was but the dying gasp of the malicious foe that waged
that unholy war. It was the wisp with which the Phillistines
bound Samson. It was soon broken and the Southem white
man was free, and has since held the position to which God
assigned bim. How is it in many of the Northern "provinces?"
Is the negro, or the white man and the white woman under the
yoke there ? Let history answer. In eight or ten States the
negro they freed holds the balance of power. After freedom
they fiocked to their friends where they could have the joy of
social equality. And now, holding the balance of power in
those States, and in at least 60 Congressional Districts, they
crack the whip over the politicians* backs as Southern over
seers were privileged to do over the felaves. The closer the
State, or the District, tbe more exacting and insolent the black
suffragan becomes, and the higher tbe price to be paid for his
vote. This condition did not and could not exist before Eman
cipation, In these cases, who is under the yoke — ^the negro or
the white man?
But this is not the worst fact that alarms the patriot. The
moral aspect is the one that statesmen should consider. The
politician thus obsessed to get office, must degrade himself. He
sinks his manhood. He must buy his office. In no view is he
more of a man than a candidate for the Senate who buys legis
latures. He takes his ignoble stand with Senator Lorrimer, If
he does not feel his degradation he was self-abased beforehand.
And be is a fit tool for the tribe of which Oakes Ames was a
High Priest, The migration of tbe negro /to the Northern
"provinces" is rapidly on tbe increase. He is lured by social

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 407
equality and there only he can find it. He is inexorable in his
demands. Give him an inch and be wUl take a yard. He now
holds the poUticians in terror. There is not a gentleman among
them who is wUling for his wife or daughter to be rubbed by
negroes in street-cars, in restaurants, hotels, theatres, or be
locked in PuUman sleepers with them. And yet they bave not
the courage to advocate and to insist on separation of the negro
from their famiUes, Who is under the yoke — the negro or the
white man ?
Scattered through the Northem "provinces" are weekly
papers edited by negroes and supported by negrophiUsts and
politcians, "for favors to come." There is hardly an issue of
these parasites that is not a demand, directly or indirectly, for
social equality. They hammer away at Jim Crow ears and at
every thin partition that obstructs them' from rubbing against
white men and women. And the white politicians dare not and
the Northem white press will not notice this social incendiar
ism. When the stifling odor of the Jack Johnson miscegenation
flooded the air of the continent — ^one white woman a suicide
and another named Cameron in his clutch — these editors ( ?) —
notably one in immaculate Boston — threw deflance at the white
race for holding its nose because negroes and whites in tbe
Northern "provinces" unite "in the Holy Bonds of Matri
mony," take their joyful bridal tours, enjoy their honeymoons,
¦and then "settle down" to raise a crop of mulattoes — all done
according to man's law up there in John Fiske 's "provinces."
Under Republican rule and its tariff there has been organ
ized a system of financial despotism unknown before in the his
tory of any kingdom, monarchy, autocracy, or empire. , And
this net, too, gradually, cunningly, secretly woven around
90,000,000 people who boast of freedom and equal rights, by
traitors chosen by their o-wn baUots. Their selected agents have
sold them into slavery. They are owned by Trusts, Monopolies,
and Corporations — ^united in one great conspiracy to strip their
victims down to poverty. And above and controlling and di
recting this band of unnumbered conspirators sits the Banking
Power with its throne in Wall Street. Yes, the patriots feed
the negro, and now they wear the yoke a thousand times more
galling to white men than slavery at any time and in any conn-

408 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
try was or could be to the negro race. When a disguised high
wayman meets a traveler and, holding a gun to his bead, de
mands bis money and takes it, he is called a robber, and in law-
abiding England, when caught, he is banged like a dog. When
thousands of men wearing the disguises of Trusts, and the
Tariff, combine their strength and rob the farmer while he
sleeps — ^not of a purse, but of a quarter of his year's earnings
— ^they, in America, are called gentlemen, and are "the Lord's
anointed." One local loss by Emancipation no one will deny. It falls
on New England — the first loss she has not been able to dodge
since 1789. Being financial and self-inflicted, it is the hardest
blow she could receive. Before she led the Abolition horde to
put Lincoln in the saddle she was America's monopolist in spin
ning and weaving cotton. Tbe South has taken from ber, with
in twenty-five years, nearly half of the millions she would have
made by her mills. And within the next quarter-century this
industry will be monopolized by the South. Already, the South
consumes more bales than those six "little provinces" in the
Empire. Another loss to New England is her rural population.
The ""provinces" of New Hampshire and Vermont have been,
to a large degree, deserted. Farm houses are decaying. Lands
once occupied and productive are now returning to tbe wilder
ness. Eliminating Boston, which is one-third of Massachusetts,
the congress representation of New England is as follows :
Massachusetts  1789—8; in 1860—10; in 1910—16
Maine  1810—7; in 1860— 5; in 1910— 4
Connecticut  1789—5; in 1860— 4; in 1910— 5
Rhode Island  1790—2; in 1860— 2; in 1910— 3
New Hampshire  1789—3 ; in 1860— 3 ; in 1910— 2
Vermont  1790—2; in 1860— 3; in 1910— 2
Sic transit gloria "provinciarum,"

CHAPTER LVn.
JOHN BROWN— A BRIEF ESSAY ON A
SMALL SUBJECT. L
There are reckoned seven wonders of the world. All these
are physical or material. The wonders in the mental, spii^itual
and psychic world have not been segregated and named, al
though they are much more numerous and interesting. It is my
purpose to speak of one, only one, of tbe psychic wonders —
the mastodon of all. It is this : Tbat of ninety million people —
two-thirds North and one-third South of an imaginary line —
all professing tbe Christian religion, tbe same patriotism, speak
ing the same language, under tbe same laws, pretending to have
the same pride of race, equal love of and devotion to their chil
dren, equal jealousy of good govemment, two-thirds North and
one-third South of an imaginary line are diametrically opposed
to each other on questions of the best government, on patriot
ism, rebellion, treason, morality, common decency, common hon
esty and personal honor. As will be shown, this difference is
so wide, so shocking, that what on one side is lauded and hon
ored as patriotism, is denounced on the other as treason ; what
is applauded with shouts and screams as philanthropy by one,
is promptly punished by the other as common stealing; what
is glorified on one side as an act approved by God, on the other
side is adjudged, vrithout a dissenting voice by even unethical
negroes, as murder of the foulest type. What is memorialized
by monuments in granite at the North is declared felony by
white and black in the South— where its only monument is a
temporary wooden gallows.
Can there be a more astounding wonder than this? , It is
not only a wonder, not only a mystery, but it is dynamite
bedded, under the foundation of our govemment with an elec
tric fuse attached. Even on poUtical economy the two sides
are so far apart that, whUe one holds it to be their duty to

410 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
support the federal government, the other indignantly demands
that the government shall support them. To bring into full
view this wonder in morality, character, religion, common
decency and honesty, I shall cite and unfold but one instance,
that of John (Osawatomie) Brown. In order to form a correct
judgment on the right and wrong of the difference between
these millions of people about this Brown, we must know some
of his most prominent acts, I cannot soil this little essay with
any more than a skeleton sketch of this saint, or demon, as he
appears on one side or the other of an imaginary line,
John Brown was, or is (as he is stUl marching on) a lineal
descendant to the fifth generation of Peter Brown, a Puritan of
the Mayfiower flavor and vintage of 1620, He was born in
Connecticut in May, 1800. In 1805 his father moved to and
settled in Hudson, Ohio, There John grew up and learned the
tanner's trade. He went back East, quit tanning and flUed a
little postoffice at Randolph- Pennsylvania, He then speculated
in land and lost out. He next returned to Ohio (1840) and
raised sheep and sold wool. His next resting place (if he ever
rested at all) was in Springfield, Mass., in 1846, There he spec
ulated in wool again; offended New England manufacturers,
who combined against him, and he migrated to London, Eng
land; There he lost the little gains he had. He returned to
New York in 1849 and settled (if he ever settled anywhere) in
North Elba, N, Y,, and went into the wool business again. For
ten years or more he had been what was called a "conductor"
on one of the many "underground railroads" that were run
from all the Southern States to Canada and that carried noth
ing but negro freight and returned empty in ballast for other
freight. Brown did a business that extended from Massachu
setts to Iowa, There were thousands actively engaged with
Brown in stealing — among them, as the biggest thieves, were
Henry Ward Beecher and Theodore Parker, New England's
highest priests. There was no competition ; the only opposition
was a rivalry to have it decided who was the greatest thief.
Brown married twice and had twenty children. In 1854 his
five eldest sons left Ohio and went to Kansas. In 1855 their
father joined them at Lawrence, Kansas. He gathered a band
of thriftless "squatters" and boon companions and his work

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 411
of death began. His fellow fanatics made him out a flesh-and-
blood Galahad, for they record as history that "with 29 men
he routed 500 Missouri ruffians" — one of the many terrible
anathemas used then to describe every owner of slaves. He ^
returned to Massachusetts to get money and guns to help save
"Bleeding Kansas." After enough murders had been recorded
to bis credit to win the coveted title of Northern hero, he drilled
a body of men to go to Virginia and seize a high mountain, to
descend into the valleys, steal slaves, conceal them on the
mountain and biU them through by underground railroad to
Northem States and Canada. When the drilled men were told
his plan they refused to go. He proposed then to seize Harper's
Ferry and they refused to go. Brown then went to Chatham,
Canada, assembled a few negro refugees, an English poet named
Richard Realf, another white man named J, H, Kagi (supposed
to be son of the celebrated gambler in Washington, D, C), and
called the motley crowd a Convention, They then adopted a
Constitution for tbe government of the United States and
formed a government by electing our hero, John Bro-wn, Com
mander of the Army and Navy; Richard Realf, tbe poet, Sec
retary of State; J. H. Kagi, Secretary of War; and the Hon.
Elder Monroe, a negro and a preacher. President of the United
States. (Tbe first and last negro President.)
When we consider every disadvantage Brown labored under
from birth (including his Puritan blood), his failure at every
thing he undertook— tanning, sheep raising, wool gathering,
trading in wool, land speculation, his failure to conquer Vir
ginia vrith the strong aid of 20 men, mcludmg his negroes— and
considermg, also, that he was a model lunatic, it must be
admitted by aU good and unprejudiced judges tbat our negro-
thief. Brown, came out of that Convention covered with aU the
glory his feUow lunatics could reasonably ask. At least, they
—his fellow lunatics— found in Brown's constitutional Conven
tion, held in Canada, and in the election of officers, ample
grounds for their— his fellow lunatics'— decision to erect a
granite monument to Brown (in Boston, in the State of Massa
chusetts), and aU they— his feUow lunatics-had to do to insure
ample contributions to buUd this-the first monument ever
erected in honor of a lunatic— was to preach a few lusty ser-

412 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
mons portraying bow John murdered men and boys in Kansas
and slave owners in Missouri, and stole their slaves and run
them into Canada, and to add, as the climax to his career, his
magnificent invasion of the entire State of Virginia, which only
failed for a dozen reasons, each of which was more "than suffi
cient. And it reaUy begins to appear, in the light of John
Brown's birth and biography, bis misdeeds and attempted
deeds, that his fellow lunatics were justifiable, by kinship and
afSnity, in perpetuating bis memory.
In June, 1859, Brown changed bis name to Smith, went to
Virginia, said he wanted land to raise sheep. He stopped six
miles from Harper's Ferry, Soon three of bis sons joined him
and other tramps straggled in as sheep raisers. With six
negroes this band of assassins numbered twenty-two. They
had brought and hidden guns and ammunition. On October
16th they sneaked into the village of Harper's Ferry before
dawn, surprised the watchmen at the arsenal, took possession,
captured Col. Washington and imprisoned sixty citizens. Brown
told passengers on a Baltimore train that passed at daylight
tbat he bad come "by authority of God Almighty to free the
slaves." The Virginians gathered quickly. Col. Robert E.
Lee, vrith a few soldiers was ordered from Washington to
recover tbe Government's property. A battle ensued. Brown,
having lost all but six men, took refuge in the engine room.
The two sons were of the six. One son was killed ; the second,
mortally wounded, feU, Brown knelt between their bodies, felt
the pulse of the dying, and gave orders to the four survivors to
"sell their bodies as dearly as possible." He was captured by
Col. Robert E. Lee, duly tried as a murderer, convicted and
hanged. The foregoing sketch of John Brown shows a small part of
tbe record out of which the wonder grows. It is very meager,
considering that over forty-five years were actually wasted in
wandering, speculation, murder of slave-holders in Kansas,. and
stealing negroes. The last — ^murder and stealing negroes —
might be called rightly his vocation; aU other works his
avocations. Stand on the boundary between Kansas and Missouri and
listen to the opinions on John (Osawatomie) Brown, as ex-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 413
pressed by the citizens of these two States ; then proceed east-
wardly to the line between Virginia and her eldest daughter,
Ohio; speak of John Brown and Harper's Ferry, and note the
battle of words tbat instantly begins. Move on into Pennsyl
vania and New York and note the rise in tone, the extravgant
laudation of tbe nation's greatest hero. You imagine that
Washington or Andrew Jackson or Grant is in the speaker's
mind. Cross the Western border of New England and listen.
What delightful harmony — what a happy family — on John
Brown! No logomachy here! All exclaim: "What a won
derful man! What a hero! What a martyr! He kissed a negro
baby and marched right up to tbe gallows — didn't even wipe
his lips!" And mingling with tbe dull hum of loom and spin
dles, breathing a sigh into the lessening sweU of the lullaby, syn
chronous witb the swing and ring of the anvil, beating time
with the commingled multitudinous roar, crash and tumult of
commerce, we hear from every hut, shop, shelter and rank, in
droning, crooning moan — and almost monotone —
"John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave.
But bis soul goes marching on,
Glory! Glory! HaUelujah!"
Draw near to the center of all fanaticism, Abolitonism and
Puritanism — ^Boston town — ^where alone American genius, un-
sandaled, must repair to win a civic crown, or wither and perish
in outer darkness, and you hear shouts of praise and glorifica
tion— "Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!" belaboring the air in honor
of John Brown, and you behold FaneuU HaU illumined like
Solomon's Temple, in preparation to set Boston's seal of Deity
on John Brown ; and you see her High Priest, Ralph Waldo
Emerson, rise and raise his holy hands, square his divinely
illuminated countenance to tbe ceUing, and in tones of awe
declare in words inspired by Mammon, and enmity to and
hatred of the South— "The murder of John Brown has made
the gaUows as sacred as the cracifixion of Christ made the
Cross." It is not surprising that this new Divinity was first created
and then discovered by New England, whence the Christ of
the Trinity, in whose name and worship the Puritans persecuted
and kiUed Quakers and women and chUdren, was banished

414 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
near a century ago by many enich spiritual tyrants and tinkei^-
ers in creeds as Henry W. Beecher and Theodore Parker, and
where recently a woman — ^thrice married and once divorced,
and a mother — ^made of the common clay of New Hampshire —
was bslieved by many thousands to be immaculate and her body
immortal. As, there, Christ has been rejected, not even an
eyebrow was raised in wonder because John Brown was first
recognized, then eulogized, panegyrized, then canonized and
raised to a Deity, New England's process of reaching this con
clusion is plain: Christ, the Son, is the equal of God, the
Father, and, of course, has all the attributes of the Father, It
was the attributes of Deity that sanctified the Cross, therefore,
as the hanging (or crucifixion) of John Brown sanctified the
gallovvs as much as the Cross was sanctified, John Brown pos-
sesed the attributes that Christ possessed, Boston selected her
poet-priest, prophet and poet-philosopher to make proelamtion
of her great discovery of a second Christ,
The remainder of the story of John Brown's deification can
be told in few words. Of course, all that could be done to the
honor and glory of New England's newly discovered Deity
was done promptly by his worshipers. The first thing was to
compose a hymn devoted exclusively to the fresh Divinity. A
genius was inspired — of course by the brand new little anthro
pomorphic God — to write up an account of bim and what he
was doing in the next world. And the inspired idiot began by
assuring the friends and worshipers of their freshly molded
Christ that "John Brown's body lies a-mpldering in the grave,"
What a brutal consoler— especially as he was of the gentle,
sensitive, mimosa strain called poet! To make a god, out of
hand, and in one night, in Faneuil Hall, and to forget or neglect
to. pump omnipotence into him, or to screw wings on his shoul
ders, was an unpardonable oversight. On second thought it is
clear that the poet was right. He knew more of New England's
fresh find than the crowd that put it together knew. When
he was selected as New England's poet laureate to compile a
sacred hymn, when the divine afflatus stimck him, he, if truth
ful, had to take things as be found them and sing John Brown's
body buried in the ground just like common folks — deity or
no deity. But the second line of this doleful hymn dedicated

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 416

to New England's manufactured and therefore dearly beloved
god, is an anomaly in poetry and logic. It is creative, and also
iconoclastic. It denies New England's worshipful contention of
Brown's Christship by denying his body's resurrection, and in
the same breath by putting that old terrestrial vagrant and
tramp on an eternal marching the instant he died. Think of a
deity dead and his body "a-moldering''' and his soul starting
out on an interminable tramp !
"But his soul goes marching on!" Marching on! Where
is it going? The orthodox doctrine speaks of only two direc
tions a disembodied soul can take. One is to Heaven the other
to HeU. On which road is this constitutional tramp marching ?
I do not mean by "Constitutional" that old effete paper that
New England denounced "as a covenant with Death and an
agreement with Hell." I mean a tramp from birth, by nature,
a constitutional vagabond on sea and land, as a duck is by
nature amphibious. The length of his journey, the time already
elapsed since he started out, raise a painful doubt as to that
soul's destination. We are told in a song by bis fellow lunatics
every day in many spots, from Maine to Alaska, that John
Brown's "soul goes marching on," They have had it "march
ing on" more than fifty-two years by Shrewsbury clock. At
three mUes an hour as its pace, his worshipers have made that
poor old lunatic march more than one million three hundred
and sixty-six thousand, five hundred and sixty miles, a distance
more than fifty-six times the circumference of the earth. Pic
ture the scene as sung so lovingly by three million white sol
diers, and by three hundred thousand negroes disguised ii^ blue
uniforms, "playing soldier" during the Aboliton War, and each
one believing John Brown's soul was keeping step with him.
What does that prolonged pUgrimage mean? That he was born
a tramp and fuU of wanderlust; that he was descended from a
PUgrim, and came of a tribe of fanatics called "PUgrim
Fathers," does not explain this interminable tramp. Either aU
these worshipful singers are hoodooed or are the dupes of a
crael joke put on them by the lunatic who wrote this dismal
hymn on Brown's soul (tbe equal in the North to Christ) ; or
it is not on the road to Heaven, but is headed for a hot place
he is trying to dodge. For this tramp is either voluntary or

416 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
compulsory. If voluntary, could any one but a lunatic dawdle
and fool away time on the way to Heaven? But the hymn as
sures us that "his soul is marching on!" He hds not stopped
a moment, no not even to kill a few Missouri ruffians and slave
holders, nor to set up his Constitiition and Government for the
United States, with his negro President.
The first human to go to the Judgment Seat after death and
return (to tell the tale to Socrates) was Er. One of the many
differences between Er, the ancient, and John Brown, the
modern wonderful traveler, is tbat Er told what he saw, and
Brown, after marching more than fifty years, shows no symp
toms of returning. It seems that tbe second Fury has cursed
him with wanderlust (the mark of a tramp), to continue for
ever, I base this view on the religious belief throughout the
Northern States — and especially New England, as is sung in
their worship of John Brown, their Second Christ — that his
soul is stiU marching on in a tramp that began the second day
of December, 1859, It would be a marvelous faith if held by a
people who claim to be rational on most subjects, but it is not
even surprising compared with belief in witchcraft and the
faith that hanged Quakers. It is idle to make war on millions
of people because they believe an absurdity in religion, especial
ly when a part of their sacred, music is inspired by an absurd
ity; a people who bave a monopoly on intelligence and are
really rational on making money, who could and would believe
John Brown the equal of Christ and who honor bis holy name
in sacred music, especially just because their greatest philoso
pher, poet and writer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, proclaimed
Brown the equal of Christ in tbe hour of his death on the
gaUows; but we cannot forget their belief in witchcraft to the
extent of committing murder to destroy it.

CHAPTER LVm.
JOHN BROWN— A BRIEF ESSAY ON A
SMALL SUBJECT.
n.
The difference or rather one of a hundred differences be
tween Er, the ancient excursionist, and John Brown, the modern
globe-trotter, is, that Er tells what he saw, and Brown can't
tell what he has seen and sees. If he could he might explain
his tardiness or truancy. Er says he reached the judgment seat
in the twinkling of an, eye; saw tbe righteous justified and
ascend to Heaven, and the wicked condemned and descend to
HeU. If Er's soul reached its destination so quickly, why does
the soul of old John delay over fifty years. Tbe reason is
evidently he is not bound for the Kingdom of Glory, and that
his father, the Devil, in consideration of bis supremacy over all
the earth as a thief and an assassin, has granted to Brown a
special dispensation to pursue, for a season, his earthly voca
tion as a tramp.
The first line of this most popular of death's-head hymns
suggests that the hymnologist must bave been of the tribe of
Puritan historians, who, as a class, are the most perfidious be
trayers of trath in the world. For instance, this line assures us
that John Brown's body, fifty years after he was hanged, is still ,
"a-moldering in the grave," We have heeh. told this marvel
ous fiction every hour in every day in every year for fifty
years, in hut, or house, or palace, or dive, or bar-room, or
theatre, or in Veterans' Camps strung from Portland to Port
land over tbe North. This strains credulity to the degree that
it recoils and breaks. Though deified old John had > been a
tanner bis bide would not have kept him "a-moldering" one
year. But he was not a tanner. He learned that trade when a
boy, but be bolted the guild, and took up vrith sheep and
a-tramping. There may be some good, honest, tmithful people
in the back-woods of Vermont or Maine, who moan out this

418 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
hymnal falsehood. They, poor souls, think this perpetual
"a-moldering" is proof of Brown's immortality, whereas the
truth is that John Brown's body, like great Csesar 's long since
turned to clay, may be feeding a flourishing apple tree, and
his dust in the form of fruit may be shipped down South in
the third or fourth class apples tbat come this way, and thus,
old John, the negro thief, may at last, by mastication, be asso
ciating for the only time in his life with gentlemen and ladies
— ^very much to his astonishment, discomfort and disgust, for
it is reasonable to suppose that his social tastes were similar to
Thomas Wentworth Higginson's, who, a few years before his
death, said tbat when be was a young man he always kept the
best company, which he said was abolitionists and negroes.
It may not be known by everybody that be was one of New
England's great scholars and philosophers, who took great
pride in stating tbat a great part of his activity in his early
life was spent as a negro thief.
In view of this almost certain transmigration from dust to
fourth-class apples, the worshipers of the Prince of negro
thieves — not excepting Theodore Parker, Garrison or Henry
Ward Beecher — should amend the second line by striking out
"soul" and inserting "dust," or better still— "dirt," Both
truth and science demand this correction. At any rate, it
seems that the South shall never be rid of New England's sec
ond Ghrist. We met the assassin in Kansas; saw him next at
Harper's Ferry; then we saw him hanged; we saw him buried;
we have heard bim preached; we bave heard him sung; we
have seen him perched on a monument; we have seen him
"a-moldering," and now we are to chew and swallow him in
homeopathic doses.
There is a numerous class of Southerners who have no doubt
tbat John Brown was an incurable lunatic. He was born under
the curse of the Furies, He had to wear the bane of as calami
tous a heredity as ever fell to the lot of any man in a civUized
age. He was not only a Puritan, but that blood had been dis-
tiUed and concentrated in him for five generations, without a
break, before the landing at Plymouth Rock, Considering his
inheritance of Puritan religious fanaticism and of mental and
moral obliquity, his chance for sanity was comparable to that

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 419
of one 's chance for health and longevity who is born the victim
of leprosy, cancer and the white plague. One evidence of his
mental limitation was the pride he felt in his Puritan stock.
When a man boasts of a personal misfortune, or a hereditary
calamity, he is either insane — ^pro tanto, at least ; or he is trying
to lay the foundation for bis defense by plea of lunacy for a
crime he intends to commit. The latter was not true of Brown,
for on his trial for the murder of a dozen or more Virginians
he rebuked his counsel for attempting to plead insanity. His
career indicates that he imagined he bad a call from the Invis
ible World to do, by desperate daring, some terrible deed, so
he would live in history as a hero and martyr. When the train
for Baltimore passed Harper's Ferry early in tbe morning tbat
Brown occupied tbat place, be told the passengers that he had
come by divine direction to free the negroes in Virginia. He
had no doubt read of Erostratus, who, to gain immortal fame,
burned the temple of Diana. He saw that acquittal on the plea
of lunacy would leave to bim but a brief mention in history
and pitying remembrance as a madman, a fool or an idiot who,
witb twenty-one men (six being negroes) atempted to conquer
the State of Virginia. He won his fading laurels as a hero in
a small region wbere heroes bave never been plentiful except
as conquerors among gamblers on the Exchange; and as a
murderer he won the crown of martyrdom and exaltation to
equality vrith Christ, on tbe gallows which, in the same region,
had made "blessed martyrs" of so many Quakers, women and
children. Every recorded act, from tbe age of twelve years to
his invasion of Virginia, strongly supports the judgment of
insanity. At twelve he expressed his horror and disgust for
all that pertained to war, only because he saw some soldiers
drilling in Ohio during the war with Great Britain in the year
1812. '
I have said he was born under the curses of the Furies. He
was as restless as a caged tiger in a circus. He had over twenty
homes, or squatting spots. The, range of his itinerary was
wide, and, like himself, veiy erratic. It extended from Con
necticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Ohio again. New York, Canada,
where be estabUshed his Constitution and United States gov
emment; then London, England; then New York, then four

420 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
different spots in Kansas, New York again ; then in Virginia to
raise sheep. Here is the curse of the Fury Alecto — ^"restless
ness — wanderlust," The two other curses — "Envy" and
"Thirst for blood" — ^he put on exhibition from his majority,
all through the Kansas war (so-caUed) down to his attack that
-Sunday night on the sleeping citizens of Virginia, When not
engaged in assassination he gave the world proof of his decency,
honesty and heroism by stealing negroes.
It was impossible for a sane man to plan the seizure of a
mountain in Virginia and to hold it as a permanent camp for
runaway negroes. It was impossible for a sane man to call a
convention of a few negroes and fewer whites in Canada, to
adopt a Constitution and organize a government to rale the
people of the United States. It was impossible for any one
except a lunatic, abolitionist or Republican, in such a conven
tion, to elect a negro President of the United States. It was
impossible for any one but an idiot or a maniac to believe he
could conquer the white race of Virginia with sixteen white
men and six negroes. It was impossible for ai sane man who
loved his family to take three of his sons, who had families,
to train them in the crimes of stealing and murder, and then
lead them into a trap from which any sane man knew tbe only
way out would be by a hangman's rope.
Who can doubt now — fifty years after Brown's death — that
he was a fanatic of the truest Puritan brand, a lunatic, a mono
maniac on negro slavery? It seems to be beyond the field of
rationalism for any other view to be considered. If this judg
ment be sound, then it was the duty of the presiding Judge on
Brown's trial to receive the plea of insanity, and of the jury
to find him a lunatic, and, therefore incapable, in legal contem
plation, of committing murder. Tbe Lunatic Asylum was his
proper destination. He had won that goal by a laborious life
of crime. Tbe hanging was a judicial error, and, considering
the time, its temper, and the general insanity on negro slavery
that prevailed from Nova Scotia to the Pacific ocean, the
hanging was also a political blunder. John Brown, the lunatic,
immured in an asylum, would bave been forgotten within a
month; John Brown as a martyr to negro freedom was an
inspiration to all the Abblitionists and fanatics at the North

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 421
and to the federal army during the war. The song, "John
Brown's body Ues a-moldering in the grave" and "his soul
goes marching on," was the best substitute for courage the
Northern armies could devise.
I have given in a feeble way the extent and the intensity
of the admiration of the worshipers of John Brown at the
North. I wiU not attempt to give the language that expressed
the Southern view of John Brovm ; suffice it to say their curses
cover him, as with a garment of many colors, from darkest
sable to that of the sun; from Dante's deepest shades of the
Inferno to the smoke, lava and flames of Vesuvius. The form,
stature, body of these expressions were made up, in part, of
"fanatic," "Puritan," "villain," "Negro-thief," "robber,"
"murderer of men and chUdren," "assassin," and these, used
as the spiritual limbs of John Brown, were clothed, garnished
and embellished by verbal costumes thick and warm enough
for a residence at tbe Arctic pole. And the pity of it is that
every charge is true and all, except two ("Puritan" and "fan
atic"), were won by his own devilish diligence. "Puritan" and
"fanatic" he was not responsible for, as he was born a Puritan
and was by birth a fanatic, as his ancestors had been from the
fifteenth century.
That John Brown was a negro-thief for the last thirty years
of bis life, no one denies. To steal a slave from bis master and
rim him into Canada was not branded stealing. It was philan
thropy, humanity, serving God. To creep at night upon white
Southem men and boys and butcher them in their beds was
not murder, it was philanthropy and humanity to the negro
and done in the service of the Lord. To invade a "sovereign
State between midnight and dawn and shoot to death white
men and boys at Harper's Ferry was not murder, assassination
and treason. That act — that conduct — was the sublimest hero
ism; a sacrificial offering of himself and his sons to advance
the cause of universal freedom. To head a posse in Kansas ; to
pass into Missouri at night ; overtake a master who was moving
his slaves to Texas; to kill the master, seize bis slaves, rush
them into Kansas and thence to Canada, vvas not stealing and
murder. Stealing? Murder? What? A devout, refined,
wealthy, cultured, supremely educated, superlatively civilized

422 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
people — Christian to any degree of differentiation in creed or
denomination that any sinner might call for at the bargain
counter — ^to be guilty of the low, mean, hang-dog, plebeian
crime of stealing? Sir, it is impossible! It is infamous even
to think of it, Sir ! Well, we vrill discuss the ethics of stealing
negroes and of murder at another time and in a different
manner. The North and the South ! What a contrast — not geograph
ical — but ethnic, social, moral and religious! They meet, but
do not mingle. They reside under the same roof, but, like man
and wife estranged, each occupies a separate room. Like man
and wife who have quarreled and parted, they speak on busi
ness, but nothing more. There is no subject from dolls to
religion on which they agree. On economics they are foes, as
much so as the highwaymen, Dick Turpin and Jack Sheppard,
and the travelers they robbed on Hounslow Heath. Communi
cation occurs only when one, peering over the partition, sees a
big nugget — as a railroad, water-power, coal mine, iron mine,
street franchise, and bribes the owner's servant to steal it; or
when overloaded with protected wares he is bunting a market.
While one is striving to keep pure tbe blood of the white race,
the other has been striving for fifty years to force a mixture of
white and negro blood. Such a condition never existed before
in the history of the world. Here, indeed, is a wonder so great
that it has the capacity of Aaron's rod ; it swallows all tbe seven
and all other wonders.
This New England Christ seems to have no appetite for
Heaven. Tf he had, he could and would bave been there the
instant be was deified by the hangman's rope. His habits unfit
him for celestial rest and society. There are no "Missouri
ruffians" in heaven for this brutal New England Jesus Christ
to murder or assassinate ; no negroes he can steal ; no wool to
gather, neither on sheep nor negroes ; no United States Consti
tution and negro President to install ; no room for tramps. This
monotonous tramp for fifty years is cruelty to animals. It is
bratal to keep tbat old reprobate constantly on the go, day and
night, Summer and Winter, without "food, water or candle
light." There was sense and great military genius in keeping
this holy buccaneer on the tramp for the four years of the

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH

Abolition War, It was to terrify and put to flight the "poor
white trash" that were driven into the Confederate Army by
the Southern aristocracy— the slaveholders. When the Cid—
Spain's greatest cavaUer— died, his body was mounted on his
war-steed and marched at the head of the army. The dead Cid
was more terrible to the enemy than the invincible living Cid,
Think of the horrifying effect on the "ignorant, poor white
trash" of the woods, of
"John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave.
But his soul goes marching on,"
when bawled, screeched, screamed, bowled, roared by an army
of three million negroes and whites, brothers in arms, and in
sixty odd different languages and nearly all nationalities except
the Simian and Gorilla, among which were Russian, Greek, Ger
man, JJorwegian, Swedish, Lapland, Hungarian, Polish, Turk
ish, Syrian, Spanish, French, Austrian, Egyptian, Chinese, Goth,
Hessian, Belgian, Dutch, Swiss, African, Italian, SiciUan, Cor
sican, Portuguese, Barbarian, Yiddish, Milesian, some Celt,
EngUsh, a little Scotch and less American. With these tongues,
guttural, sputtepal, hissing, sizzing, roaring, the thunderous
Babel was enough to scare a thousand DevUs, Tbe wonder is
that the "poor white trash" of the South, who always easily
won every battle when the odds against them was not more
than two to one, did not use their heels for flight instead of
their guns to flght. Think of this courage when even a repri
mand in guttural Russian alone would paralyze a Parlez-Vous,
or a macaroni millionaire, who swears as well as prays in his
soft liquid, bastard Latin.
We have seen tbe man John Brown. We have proof given
by strangers, friends, relatives, acquaintances, one relative
under oath, and biographers, of his insanity. We have beard
him talk. We bave watched bim on the tramp. We know
enough of his record, his actions, for forty-flve years to judge
and to decide whether he was sane or insane. During bis life
he was pronounced insane by thousands, and sane by thousands.
One of his kin made affidavit that Brown was a lunatic. James
Redpath, his first biographer, tried to persuade himself of
Brown's sanity, but he stated facts on which Brown's contem
poraries adjudged him insane. A few of his acts and sayings I

424 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
bave given. If we shall judge Brown by the rules applies to
other individuals to test their sanity, there can not be a doubt
that John Brown was by nature erratic from birth to his fortieth
year, and from that last date he was, on the subject of negro
slavery, an incurable monomaniac. He was so ignorant as to
believe that the South was responsible for this slavery, and was
so superstitious as to be convinced that God had called him to
be His special agent to wipe out the great sin of slavery, and
to slay the masters and owners if necessary. One of the infal
lible proofs of bis lunacy is that without feeling the sUghtest
animosity to any Southern man or woman, he felt it to be his
duty under God's direction to free the negroes at once, even if i
he had to slay all Southern whites. Of the last statement Brovm
has supplied abundant proof by kiUing slave owners in Missouri
whom he bad never seen nor heard of, in order to take the slaves
and send them to Canada; and, second, by his invasion of
Virginia and killing any one who opposed his attempt to incite
insurrection; and, third, by his repeated declaration during
twenty years that he would kill any one who opposed him in
freeing the slaves.
I have now reached the last stage I had in view when I
began these chapters on John Brown. My purpose was to con
sider the status of New England as emblazoned by herseK in
her relation to John Bro-wn and the South. She has declared
to the world and to all posterity that John Brown was not
insane, was not a lunatic, was not a monomaniac, or she has
advertised herself as the patron of a thief, murderer and assas
sin, by erecting a monument in honor of John Brown, New
England is in this dilemma. If she deny that she intended to
commemorate the lunacy of Brown and that she believed and
believes he was not insane, then the North has honored with a
monument this thousand-fold thief, murderer, assassin, and
traitor, a man she knew to be a thief, a man who confessed
that when a boy he stole from a young girl who was his
mother's guest, a man who openly avowed that he cared noth
ing for law, the Constitution or the Acts of Congress, or human
life when it stood in his way on his path as a negro-thief.
When Wendell PhilUps, at that date New England's most ef-'
fective orator, tumed traitor to his country and gave sedition-

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 425
ary and mutinous declaration, only because the Constitution
guaranteed protection to property, he set the mob aflame
against all law, organic and statute. State and federal. The
Constitution being condemned as criminal, the fugitive slave
statute was of course the work of the Devil. .New England in
dorsed Phillips's mutiny against law, and thereby approved the
mob and its furious attacks on the laws.

CHAPTER LIX.
"THE GREAT CONSPIRACY:" A ROLLICK
ING ROMANCE; BY JOHN A. LOGAN.
I will devote a few remarks to one book that was ushered
in, or out, much as a fighting bull of the highest Andalusian
royal family enters the arena witb head and tail high in the air.
"The Great Conspiracy; Its Origin and History," is the title.
After recovering from the shock it gives, the mind sees CatUine
masqued and crouched, ready to spring upon the Senate; or
Guy Fawkes concealed under the floor of Parliament with pow
der and fuse. The book is a rollicking romance, compiled by
a modern Munchausen and fathered by General John A. Logan
— ^his mausoleum, on whose portal is inscribed, out of the fuU-
ness of bis ignorance, the portentous title that roars so loud
and thunders in the index. It has one merit. It has one of the
charms of Madame de Montespan, or of the Dtichess ValUere, —
its attire is gorgeous ; Russia caK; top, bottom and front gilded;
so richly adorned that one who knew tbe author well, and has
often heard him speak, derives great pleasure from perusing
the outside of his book. As beauty in women of some tribes in
Africa is estimated by their obesity, this volume, there, would
be a bewitching belle, as it is 810 folios fat. This charm is pro
hibitory to an investigator looking for reasons, because their
number is in inverse ratio to the folios. The author, -with good
judgment, has enlisted other writers and speakers, and gives,
fairly, tbe names, occasions and language, Tn this respect the
contents are of some interest, but of Uttle value. It was weU
to compose by proxy.
^he writer knew General Logan well, has heard him speak
in the United States Senate many times, and be knows tbat the
General was neither orator, writer, nor scholar. He uttered
very many sentences that needed immediate repairs. He was
very dark— swarthy — ^vrith hair straight, and black as a crow,
and was reputed to be a quarter — or even haK — ^Indian. EQs

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 427
acquaintances called him "Blael? Jack." (There grows in the
South a scrub oak called black jack, and Black Jack Logan,
compared to a first-class Southern statesman, would be like a
Southem black jack. standing by a Sequoia of California,) He
went to the House from a District in Illinois called "Egypt;"
land afterwards to the Senate, with the most unsavory distinc
tion of first trying to raise a regiment in "Egypt" to fight for
the South, and then being induced by promise of a commission
to change front and join the federal army, I tell the tale that
fiUed the air ia Washington. If true, he should have been
content vrith the immortal renown of commanding a corps
under the President emeritus of the Ananias Club in his march
through Georgia, so perilous to cattle, hogs and chickens. In
justice to his memory I must state that in 1881 he made a state
ment in the Senate denying the charge.
I have said he was not an orator. It may be I am not com-
petent^to judge. I base my statement, I might say risk my
reputation as a critic, in part — a very small part — on what may
have been eloquence in Egypt, lUinois, but which to my judg
ment and' sensibility was not convincing. He never spoke
vrithout amputating sentences with a "hawk and a spit." The
venerable and watchful Sergeant-at-Arms, Capt. Bassett, was
always alert and watchful and ready with a Mercury-footed
page to bear a capacious cuspidor. It is still an open question,
whether that hyphenated oratory was to emphasize the logic,
or to keep senators awake. But what boots it what a Southem
Rebel, a Conspirator, a Traitor, thinks or believes, or does not
believe of any of the heroic patriots and conquerors? Does not
John A. Logan still live in stone and marble in the great White
City of the plains? Does not William Lloyd Garrison from
marble Ups still denounce, in Boston, the Constitution as "a
covenant with Death and an agreement with Hell?" And to
emphasize the high honor thus conferred on them, has not the
same class of diseriminatmg worshipers erected a monument
to a group of negroes, claimed by them as equals, on one of the
cowpaths of Boston? Verily, verily, let not those despair who,
cribbed and confined in Northern lunatic asylums, dream they
"dwell in marble halls," or that they are soaring heavenward
in Elijah's chariot of fire; for outside are as arrant fools and
lunatics as they.

428 TRUE VINIDICATION OF THE SOUTH
We will now pass through the gilded portals of this patriot's
mausoleum, adorned outside with twelve Crescents, signKying
the Puritans' religious creed — "The Koran, or the Sword" —
and hear what a Northern statesman and Savior of the Repub
Uc has to say. Before "getting down to brass tacks" (see
specimens of American oratory. North, under head of "Wm. H.
Taft") in order to put the reader's mind "in a state of recep
tivity," I will state that this Northem General, wearing the
rather feeble praise of being one of the ablest commanders in
the Northern Army, devotes an entire chapter of 65 pages to
the description of the battle of BuU Run, and concludes his
narrative with the consoling sigh — "In point of fact, the battle
of Bull Run — ^the first pitched battle of the war — ^was a drawn
battle!!" He then explains, in the present tense, 24 years after the
"drawn battle," as follows: "It is not fear that has got the*
better of the Union troops. It is physical exhaustion, for one
thing ; it is thirst for another. Men must drink — even K they
have thrown away their canteens — ^and many have 'retired' to
get water. It is not fear, though some of them are panic-
stricken; and as they catch sight of Stuart's mounted men —
no black horse or uniform among them — ^they raise the cry of
'The Black Horse Cavalry!— The Black Horse Cavalry!' "
The man who can read this account of that "drawn battle"
without having his sides to a'che, is fit for nothing on earth but
to be a professional mourner at funerals on half pay. "It is
not fear ! " " They are thirsty ! " " You know, men must drink,
even if they bave thrown away their canteens." "It is not
fear!" They are only "panic-stricken," and as they cannot
tell a white horse from a black horse, they just "retired to get
water." Yes, Byron had an opinion somewhat on that line:
"Man, being reasonable, must get drunk — ^
The best of life is but intoxication,"
Certainly, General ! You have got that battle down right.
When a man, yes — any man — ^in a battle, is very thirsty, and
also exhausted, and, besides, panic-stricken, but not at all
afraid, and can't teU a black horse from a white horse, he has
the right to "retire to get water" even if he has to "draw"
the battle along with bim ! What is the glory of victory to a

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 429
„,¦ f  .
man panic-stricken, and so thirsty he can't see straight? That
word "retire," under the circumstances, is a flash of genius.
But it is like the one speech of "Single-Speech" HamiltPn — it
was Logan's flrst and only flash. Still, it, like Hamilton's
speech, is enough to give him fame. "He stands on a monu
ment and glory covers him." The glory, however, is very scant
— ^like the dress of a Russian danseuese — it is too low above
and too high below to be of much use in a gale.
In the preface to this compilation, after assuring us that
"while striving to be accurate, fair and just, the author has
not thought it his duty to mince words, nor to refrain from
calling things by their right names," he says: "While trac
ing the history of the Great Conspiracy from its obscure birth
in the brooding brains of a few ambitious men of the earliest
days of our Republic, through the subsequent years of its devo
lution" — (devolution is good — excellent; still, let's not com
plain — ^it might have been worse) — "down to the evil days of
NuUification and to the bitter and bloody period of armed
Rebellion, or contemplating it in its still more recent and, per
haps, more sinister development of today." Merciful Heaven!
are the panic and thirst of Bull Run to be felt forever? What?
Another Conspiracy in "brooding brains today" (1885)? Is
the Cannon-Payne-Aldrich-Taft tariff tbe first "devolution"
of it? But he winds up, at the end of the preface to this compila
tion, in a calm, Christian spirit. He magnanimously offers
"forgiveness to aU Conspirators and Rebels and Traitors, who,
with manly candor, soldierly courage and true patriotism, have
confessed the enormity of their offence in aid of the armed Re
belUon, and of the heresies and plottings in mad efforts tb
destroy the best government yet devised by man on this
planet." My opinion is that this benediction with absolution
attached has come too late, as the conspirators, rebels and
traitors, K there were any of that class, are all dead; K not,
they ought to be. StiU the smaUest of favors should be thank
fully received and in return (as he kindly says "If there be
found tvithin these covers aught which may seem harsh to those
directly or indirectly, nearly, or remotely, connected with that
Conspiracy, he may not unfairly exclaim — ^'Thou canst not say

430 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
I did it' "), I forgive him, and will remember him merrily, for
putting into this, his gilded mausoleum, as history, the infor
mation that the battle of Bull Run was a drawn battle. As he
promised to be accurate and fair, I -wish he had left a Uttle
memorandum explaining who or what is the "antecedent" of
the pronoun "he" in the last quotation I gave, and who is to
exclaim — "Thou canst not say I did it," and to say it "not
unfairly." I give the foregoing as a sample of the contents of this com
pilation by one of the North's greatest Generals and statesmen.
This rating is not mine. His judgment of what a battle is,
when it is "drawn" and why the Union troops retired to get
¦water just at the moment when victory was assured, is not
satisfactory. His report of Bull Run is too ghort. It stops
before the "drawn battle" ended. It would be gratifying to
know whether those thirsty patriots got water, if, so, whether
from Bull Run, or in Washington ; and also whether Bull Run
was named after the battle, in honor of the Union army. Nor
does he say whether the Union troops bivouacked that night
on the banks of Bull Run or "retired" to Washington to re
ceive an ovation and the congratulations of their Commander-
in-Chief — ^Lincoln.
Of the author as a scholar, -writer, historian, and even as
General might be inscribed on one portal of the mausoleum
aforenamed — "Ex nihilo nihU fit," because of his opinion about
the first battle of Manassas. Taking this opinion as a standard
or sample, we are justified in applying to the entire romance
another Latin maxim — "ex uno disce omnes" — ^from one sam
ple we know the entire contents. Still, the book is a most
effective compilation for any one who might be bis vindictive
enemy. On "Causes pf Secession," he assigns as the chief cause
conspiracy, by Southern statesmen that began at the first ses
sion of the Congress under the Constitution. He dates it from
the entrance into the Senate of Pierce Butler of South Carolina,
who objected to an Impost Bill. He quotes from tbe diary of
Senator Maclay of Pennsylvania, who calls Butler "a flaming
meteor" and says "he scattered his remarks over the bill and
threatened a dissolution of the Union." This Maclay is the

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 431
astute observer, whose opinion of the New Englanders is
quoted in an early chapter, which, liberally translated, reads :
"They will rule or ruin."
He has then to skip 44 years to find the next link in his
chain of evidence to prove the South's conspiracy. This link
is the private letter of Andrew Jackson to Rev. A. J. Crawford,
in 1833, abusing Calhoun whom he hated as only Jackson could
hate. He n~ext quotes from a private letter to an "Alabamian"
(name not given) from Henry Clay, in 1844 (eleven years
later), saying; "From developments now being made in South
Carolina, it is perfectly manifest that a party exists in that
State seeking a dissolution of the Union." This was a very
languid "conspiracy," now 55 years of age. Carolinians are
noted for quick action. He next quotes from a private letter
by Nathan Appleton of Boston, written December 15th, 1860,
(to whom is not stated) that he "had made up his mind frPm
what occurred when be was in Congress in 1832-3, that Cal
houn, Hayne and McDuffie desired a separate confederacy as
more favorable to the security of slave property."
This great discoverer of a terrible mare's nest — "The Great
Conspiracy" — ^is a careless historian and very nearsighted.
Had he been diUgent he would have found at least a dozen
declarations by New England and her sons favoring disunion
and secession during tbe period of his "Great Conspiracy" by
South CaroUna. But as we have been told a million times that
Southern people are sluggards, lazy, indolent and white trash,
whereas their enemies up North are quick on the trigger in
everything, this accounts for New England's rapid movements
to secede or tp break up the Union. Her sprinting in this race
of Conspirators has been accorded to her m a preceding chap
ter. The reader is requested to sit as a judge hearing a charge
of treason, as set forth in these 800 pages about "Tbe Great
Conspiracy," and to bear in mind that the prosecutor searched
aU records, even including private letters, to sustain his charge.
We need no other proof of this diligence than the size of his
book, and our kno-wledge that any one under charge of being a
renegade vrill leave no nook or comer unexplored to reinstate
himself with his alUes. What is the evidence so far adduced?

432 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
First, that one South Carolinian, Pierce Butler, in opposing
New England's tariff in the first Congress, threatened dissolu
tion of the Union. A "Great Conspiracy" by one hot-headed
man ! And the evidence proves that if he did not cool off, he
was conspiring alone for forty-four years! Any school-boy
knows that "a flaming meteor" could not bum that long. Then
follow three private letters, the first, (Jackson's) in 1833; the
second, (Clay's) in 1844, and the third, (Appleton's) in 1860
— aU, relating to the supposed disunion sentiment in one State
(South Carolina) and to one subject — ^Nulliflcation. What
were the other Southerii States doing, thinking and saying
during those 44 years? On this all-important link to show
conspiracy in and of the South, this prosecutor is dumb. But
history is not silent. They did not agree with South Carolina
on Nulliflcation ! And it is pertinent just here to state that so
fair from conspiring from 1789 to any other date, when the
Compromise of 1850 was made in Congress the issue of Union
or Disunion was raised North and South, and in the elections
in 1851 every Southem State declared in lavor of the Union.
This fact alone is a complete answer to "The Great
Conspiracy." But we proceed with this prosecutor's evidence. The next
is a speech by Francis Thomas, ex-Governor of Maryland, in
October, 1861: "In substance, he said that twenty years ago,
he, as a Representative, noticed one moming when he entered
the House, that no Southem members were present. Hearing
they were in caucus, he went to the caucus room and he found
Governor Pickens of South Carolina-r-that little cock-sparrow —
strutting about like a rooster around a barnyard coop, dis
cussing the foUowing Resolution: 'Resolved, that no member
of Congress representing a Southem constituency shall again
take his seat until a Resolution is passed satisfactory to the
.South on the subject of slavery.' He replied to Pickens and
moved an adjournment sine die. Mr. Craig of Virginia sec
onded the motion and the company was broken up. We re
turned to the' House and Mr. TngersoU of Pennsylvania, a glo
rious patriot, introduced a resolution which temporarily calmed
the excitement. The caucus was held because Slade' of Vermont
had made an anti-slavery speech." Here is proof of "The
Great Conspiracy."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 433
In reply to Thomas, the National IntelUgencer, at Washing
ton, November 4th, (6 days after his speech) said: "We are
able to state that at least three others besides himself
(Thomas) went to the caucus with a purpose very different
from any intention to consent to any treasonable measure.
These were Henry A. Wise, Baillie Peyton and Wm. Cost
Johnson. Had disunion, or revolt, or secession been proposed,
he would have witnessed a scene not soon to be forgotten."
This brings the proof of "The Great Conspiracy" down to
1860, when his next e-vidence is the debate between Alexander
H. Stephens and Robert Toombs of Georgia on Secession. He
foUows this with a speech by Wigfall of Texas in Congress in
1861, a speech by Andrew Johnson in Congress and one by
McDougal of CalKomia in the Senate in 1862, in which they
play the role of prophets "after the fact" of Secession. This is
enough of "The Great Conspiracy!"
But it must be stated that in this chapter— " Causes of Se
cession" — ^the not very learned traducer nor very able lawyer
gives some very valuable testimony in favor of Secession — the
legal import of which he did not comprehend. The moving
cause of Secession was the utter abandon of the Northern people
on the right to and security of property. This condition
in the North this nearsighted prosecutor gives by setting out
the solemn legislation of many States to nullify the Constitu
tion. The enormity of this dishonor and breach of the bond of
Union between the States, our author by proxy treats with
levity, not to say gayety. He says and says it gravely and vrith
an air of supreme authority over the whole question: "This
may be as good a place as any other to say a few words touch
ing another alleged 'cause' of Secession. During the exciting
period just prior to the breaking out of the great War of
RebeUion" (one of his favorite vilifications) "the Slave-holding
and Secession-nursing States of the South (another of his sweet
morsels) "made a terrible hubbub over the Personal Liberty
Bills of the Northem States" • • • "They constituted, as
we now know, only a part of the mere pretext!"
Then, to be perfectly fair, he says: "That the reader may
quickly grasp not only the general nature but also the most
important detaUs of these laws in force in 1860 in many of the

434 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
Pree States, so frequently alluded to in the Debates in Con
gress, in speeches on the stump and in the fulminations of
Seceding States, and their authorized agents, commissioners
and representatives, it may be well now briefly to refer to
them and to state that no such laws existed in California, Illi
nois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Ohio and Oregon."
The writer feels as if he belittles this great question in
following the vagaries of the putative author of this book. An
apology is due to the reader. It is like criticising boys on corn
stalks riding around the circus-ring after the circus is gone.
What ground, he says, had the South to "fulminate" when
the eight States he names had no law nullifying the Constitu
tion? Tf eighteen Northem States had that law — ^what of it?
Note the important ( ?) fact that California and Oregon, two
thousand miles away from the western border of slavery, had
no such law. Then why complain? He names New York in
the eight redeeming States, whereali New York passed the
nuUKying Act in 1840, Ohio had no such statute, he says. But
she had mobs with such fury that over one fugitive slave the
resistance to the Act of Congress was so alarming as to be
called in history "The Ohio RebelUon." Such crass ignorance
is inexcusable, but when barbed witb malice and reeking vrith
venom it is damnable.
This pundit then gives the substance of the laws of the
States that had defied the Constitution. As they have been
given in a preceding chapter, but one statute of these rebellious
States will be quoted here as Logan states it. Take Vermont.
"Vermont provided that no process under the fugitive slave
law should be recognized by any of her courts, officers or citi
zens; nor any aid given in arresting or removing any person
claimed as a fugitive slave; it provided counsel for alleged
fugitives; for the issue of habeas corpus and trial by jury of
issues of fact between the parties; ordained freedom to all
within the State who may have been held as slaves before com
ing to it, and prescribed heavy penalties for any attempt to
retum any such to slavery, A bUl to repeal these laws, pro
posed November, 1860, in the Vermont House of Representa
tives, was beaten by two to one."

TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH 436
This statute was doubly revolutionary. It not only nulli
fied the Act of Congress, but it destroyed title to property
guaranteed by the Constitution. It freed every slave as soon
as he set foot on the soil of that State, With these infamous
laws before his eyes Logan saw nothing in them to justify even
a complaint by tbe South, For the present it is sufficient to
say that Daniel Webster, in 1851, declared they had broken the
bond (the Constitution), and tbe South was no longer bound
by it. So much valuable space would not have been given to
Logan's vox et praeterea nihU — "The Great Conspiracy" —
were he not held in such a high niche of Northern idolatry as
to be saved from oblivion by a statue in Chicago. It is hard to
believe tbat he submitted the" contents of this book to the
judgment of any judicious men who were bis friends, for it is
packed with falsehoods, and even with aspersions upon the
character of some Northern men, one of whom — Stephen A.
Douglas — as he tells us, after Secession was furious for war.
He says that Douglas, during the notorious debate between
him and Lincoln, in one speech — ^made not in joint debate —
"declined to comment upon Lincoln's intimation of a conspiracy
between Douglas, Pierce, Buchanan and Taney (Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of tbe United States) for the passage
of the Nebraska BiU, tbe rendition of the Dred Scott decision
and the extension of slavery, but proceeded to dUate on the
'uniformity' issue between himseK and Lincoln, tersely sum
ming up witb tbe statement tbat 'there is a distinct issue of
principle — ^principles irreconcilable — ^between Mr. Lincoln and
myself; He goes for consoUdation and uniformity in our Gov
ernment, I go for the confederation of the Sovereign States
under the Constitution, as our fathers made it, leaving each
State to manage its o-wn affairs and own internal institutions,'
He then ridiculed Lincoln's proposed methods of securing a
reversal of the decision in the Dred Scott case ; Lincoln having
contended for an appeal to the people to elect a President
who wiU appoint judges who wUl reverse the Dred Scott
decision, which Douglas characterized as a proposition to make
that court a corrupt, unscrupulous tool of the political party,
and asked : 'When we refuse to abide by judicial decisions, what

436 TRUE VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH
protection is there left for IKe and property? To vvhom shall
we appeal ? To niob law, to partisan caucuses, to town meetings,
to revolution ? Where is tbe remedy when you refuse obedience
to the constituted authority?' "
In that quotation from Douglas, this Lilliputian, Logan,
gives a complete answer to all be has written in his dropsical
book, 810 pages, endeavoring to fasten on the South tbe respon
sibility of the war, and whose main argument consists in
hurling at tbe Southern States expressions, the meaning of
which he did not know— "Rebel!"— "RebelUon!"— "Trea
son ! "— " Traitors ! "— " Conspirators ! ' '
He quotes again from Mr, Douglas where he, Douglas, makes
the charge directly against Lincoln to his face, to-vrit: "Mr,
Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the
United States because of their judicial decisions in the Dred
Scott case, I yield obedience to the decisions of that court —
to the final determination of the highest tribunal known to
our Constitution, He objects to the Dred Scott decision because
it does .not -put the negro in tbe possession of the rights of
citizenship on an equality with tbe white man. I am opposed to
negro equality. I would extend to the negro and the Indian,
and to all the dependent races, every right, and every privilege,
and every immimity consistent vrith the safety and weKare of
the White races; but equality they should never bave, either
political or social, or in any other respect whatever. My friends,
you see tbat the issues are distinctly drawn between Mr, Lincoln
and myself,"
I will refrain from quoting further from this compilation
evidently made and written by another, and dismiss it"with the
remark that if Hell is as full of liars as this vast volume is
full of lies, no other sinners need apply, for there is not even,
standing room, A General commanding a corps in tbe Federal
Army and supposed to know what is victory and defeat in a
battle, and also suspected of being able to tell the truth, and
yet who would call tbe battle of Bull Run, the first pitched
battle of the war, a drawn battle — ^well, I suppose, that, as
monuments go in the North to John Brown; Garrison, and
negroes in Boston, Logan was equally worthy of his monument
in Chicago.

APPENDIX L
LINCOLN'S LETTER TO MRS. BROWNING.
"Springfield, April 1, 1838.
"Dear Madam: —
"Without apologizing for being egotistical, I shall make the
history of so much of my life as has elapsed since I saw you,
the subject of this letter. And, by the way, I now discover that,
in order to give a full and intelligible account of the things
I have done and suffered since I saw you, I shall necessarily
have to relate some tbat happened before.
"It was, then, in the autumn of 1836 that a married lady of
my acquaintance and who was a great friend of inine, being
about to pay a visit to her father and other relatives residing
in Kentucky, proposed to me that on her return she would bring
a sister of hers vrith her on condition that I would engage to
become her brother-in-law with all convenient dispatch. I, of
course, accepted the proposal, for you know I could not have
done otherwise, had I really been averse to it; but privately,
between you and me, I was most confoundedly well pleased with
the project. T had seen the said sister some three years before,
thought her intelligent and agreeable, and saw no good objection
to plodding Ufe through hand in hand with ber. Time passed
on, the lady took her journey, and in due time returned, sister
in company sure enough. This astonished me a Uttle; for it
appeared to me that her coming so readily showed that she
was a trifle too -willing; but, on reflection, it occurred to me that
she might have been prevailed on by her married sister to
come, without anything concerning me ever having been men
tioned to her; and so I concluded that, if no other objection
presented itseK, I would consent to waive this. All this occurred
to me on hearing of her arrival in the neighborhood ; for, be it
remembered, I had not yet seen her, except about three years
previous, as above mentioned. Tn a few days we had an inter-

438 APPENDIX

view; and, although I had seen her before, she did not look as
my imagi:^ation had pictured her. I knew she was over-size,
but she now appeared a fair match for Falstaff. I knew she
was called an 'old maid,' and I felt no doubt of the truth of at
least half of the appellation; but now, wben I beheld ber, I
could not for my life avoid thinking of my mother; and this,,
not from withered features, for her skin was too full and fat
to permit of its contracting into wrinkles, but from her want
of teeth, weather-beaten appearance in general, and from a
kind of notion that ran in my head that nothing could bave
commenced at the size of infancy and reached her present bulk
in less than thirty-five or forty years; and, in short, I was
not at all pleased with her. But what could I do ? I bad told
, her sister T would take her for better or for worse; and I
made a point of honor and conscience in all things to stick to
my word, especially if others had been induced to act on it,
which in this case I had no doubt they had; for T was now
fairly convinced that no other man on earth would bave her,
and hence tbe conclusion that they were bent on holding me
to my bargain. 'Well,' thought I, 'I have said it, and, be the
consequences what they may, it shall not be my fault K T fail
to do it. ' At once I determined to consider her my wife ; and,
this done, all my powers of discovery were put to work in
search of perfections in her which might be fairly set off against
ber defects. I tried to imagine her handsome, which, but for
her unfortunate corpulency, was actually true. Exclusive of
this, no woman that T bave ever seen has a finer face. I also
tried to convince myseK that the mind was much more to be
valued than the person; and in this she was not inferior, as I,
could discover, to any with whom I had been acquainted.
"Shortly after this, without coming to any positive under
standing with her, T set out for Vandalia, when and where you
first saw me. During my stay there I had letters from her
which did not change my opinion of either ber intellect or inten
tion, but on the contrary confirmed it in both.
"All this while, although I was fixed, 'firm as the surge-
repelling rock,' in my resolution, I found I was continually
repenting the rashness which had led me to make it. Through
life, I have been in no bondage, either real or imaginary, from

APPENDIX 439

the thraldom of whieh I so much desired to be free. After my
return home, I saw nothing to change my opinion of her in
any particular. She -v^as the same, and so was I. I now spent
my time in planning how I might get along through life after
my contemplated change of circumstances should have taken
place, and how I might procrastinate the evil day for a time,
which I really dreaded as much, perhaps more, than an Irishman
does the halter.
"After all my suffering upon this deeply interesting subject, ,
here I am, wholly, unexpectedly, completely, out of the
'scrape;' and now I want to know if you can guess how I got
out of it — out, clear in every sense of the term; no violation
of word, honor, or conscience. I don't believe you can guess,
and so I might as well tell you at once. As the lawyer says,
it was done in the maimer following, to-wit: After I had
delayed the matter as long as I thought T could in honor do
(which, by the way, had brought me round into the last fall),
I concluded I might as weU bring it to a consummation without
further delay ; and so I mustered my resolution, and made the
proposal to her direct; but, shocking to relate, she answered,
No, At first I supposed she did it through an affectation of
modesty, which I thought but ill became her under the peculiar
circumstances of ber case; but on my renewal of the charge,
I found she repelled it vrith greater firmness than before, I
tried it again and again, but with the same success, or rather
-with tbe same want of success,
"I finaUy was forced to give it up-; at which I very unex
pectedly found myseK mortified alinost beyond endurance. I
was mortified, it seemed to me, in a hundred different ways.
My vanity was deeply wounded by the refiection that I had
been too stupid to discover her intentions, and at the same time
never, doubting that I understood them perfectly; and also
that she, whom I had taught myself to believe nobody else
would have, bad actuaUy rejected me with all my fancied
greatness. And, to cap the whole, I then for the first time
began to suspect that I was really a little in love with her.
But let it all go. I'U try and outUve it. Others have been
made fools of by the girls; but this can never with truth be

440 APPENDIX

said of me, I most emphatically, in this instance, made a fool
of myseK, I bave now come to the conclusion never again to
think of marrying, and for this reason : I can never be satisfied
with any one who would be blockhead enough to have me.
"When you receive this, write me a long yarn about some
thing to amuse me. Give my respects to Mr. Browning.
"Your sincere friend, "A. LINCOLN."
"Mrs. 0. H. Brownmg."

n.
A BACKWOODS WEDDING COMEDY
STAGED BY LINCOLN.
(FROM HERNDON 'S "LIFE OF LINCOLN,")
Lincoln had shrewdly persuaded some one who was on the
inside at the infare to slip upstairs while the feasting was at
its height and change the beds, which Mamma Grigsby had
carefuUy arranged in advance. The transportation of beds
produced a comedy of errors which gave Lincoln as much satis
faction and joy as the Grigsby household embarrassment and
chagrin. "Now there was a man," begins this memorable chapter of
backwoods lore, "whose name was Reuben, and the same was
very great in substance; in horses and cattle and swine, and
a very great household. It came to pass when the sons of
Reuben grew up that they were desirous of taking to themselves
wives, and being too well known as to honor in their own
country they took a journey into a far coimtry and there pro
cured for themselves wives. It came to pass also that wben
they were about to make tbe return home they sent a messenger
before them to bear the tidings to their parents. These, enquir
ing of the messengers what time their sons and wives would
come, made a great feast and called all their kinsmen and
neighbors in and made great preparations. When the time drew
nigh they sent out two men to meet the grooms and their
brides with a trumpet to welcome them and to accompany them.
When they came near unto the house of Reuben the father,
the messenger came on before them and gave a shout, and the
whole multitude ran out vrith shouts of joy and music, playing
on all kinds of instruments. Some were playing on harps,
some on viols, and some blo-wing on rams' horns. Some also
were casting dust and ashes towards heaven, and chief among
them all was Josiah, blowing his bugle and making sound so
great tbe neighboring hills and valleys echoed with the resound- v
ing acclamation. When they had played and their harps had
sounded till the grooms and brides approached the gates,

442 APPENDIX

Reuben the father met them and welcomed them to his house.
The wedding feast being now ready they were aU invited to
sit down to eat, placing the bridegrooms and their wives at
each end of the table. Waiters were then appointed to serve
and wait on the guests. When all had eaten and were full
and merry they went out again and played and sung till night.
and when they had made an end of feasting and rejoicing the
multitude dispersed, each going to his o-wn home. The famUy
then took seats vrith their waiters to converse while prepara
tions were being made in an upper chamber for the brides and
grooms to be conveyed to their beds. This being done the
waiters took the two brides upstairs, placing one in a bed at
the right hand of the stairs and the other on tbe left. The
waiters came down, and Nancy, tbe mother, then gave direc
tions to the waiters of the bridegrooms, and they took them
upstairs but placed them in the wrong beds. The waiters then
all came downstairs. But the mother, being fearful of a mis
take, made enquiry of the waiters, and leaming the trae facts
took the light and sprang upstairs. It came to pass she ran
to one of the beds and exclaimed, '0 Lord, Reuben, you are in
bed with the wrong wife,' The young men, both alarmed at
this, sprang up out of bed and ran vrith such violence against
each other they came near knocking each other down. The
tumult gave evidence to those below that the mistake was cer
tain. At last they all came down and had a long conversation
about who made the mistake, but it could not be decided. So
endeth the chapter,"
The reader will readily discern that the waiters had been
carefully drilled by Lincoln in advance for the parts they were
to perform in this rather unique piece of backwoods comedy.
He also improved t'he rare opportunity which presented itseK
of caricaturing "Blue Nose" Crawford, who had exacted of him
such an extreme penalty for the damage done to his "Weems'
Life of Washington." He is easily identified as "Josiah blowing
his bugle," The latter was also the husband of my informant,
Mrs, Elizabeth Crawford.

m.
SOME SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS ON
THADDEUS STEVENS, LINCOLN,
BEECHER, PARKER, AND
JOHN BROWN.
When Thad Stevens, branded a monster by Nature, coun
seled and ruled by a negro prostitute, was driving Congress
vrith tbe lash to wrest tbe ballot from tbe Southern Whites,
and to give it to their slaves, the perjury committed by Con
gressmen did not, for a moment, impair the right of the States
to have exclusive control of the ballot. But the children of
those perjured fathers are reaping the penalties of that sin.
When Abraham Lincoln rode down the Constitution he had
just sworn to support, by invading Virginia with fire and
sword, to conquer and to kill, that invulnerable instrument rose
above him and his organized mob, as bright and legible as
when it first illumined the western world. The direct result
of tbat violation of his oath was the butchery of a million of
his countrymen and women, and John Wilkes Booth's mad
attempt to avenge the South,
When Henry Ward Beecher lost the way to Heaven, and
wandered off, "treading the primrose path pf dalliance" -with
Elizabeth, the plighted consort of his parishoner, Theodore
Tilton, he may have thought he had repealed the Seventh Com
mandment, But it is as omnipotent as when Moses received it
on the Mount. It reached for the adulterer and brought him
to judgment when Tilton sued him for wrecking his home.
The jury, whose fellow feeling made them wondrous kind, made
a mistrial, but tbe jury of the pubUc said "guilty," unfrocked
him, christened him "son of BeUal," and left bim in his Taber
nacle, a standing advertisement, every Sabbath, of tbe Com
mandment — "Thou shalt not commit adultery," They found
him a virile hypocrite, and left him an evangelizing eunuch.
Wben Theodore Parker — the founder of one of tbe many
religions that bave been hatched in that model incubator,
Boston — ^made his home a den to hide negro thieves and stolen

444 APPENDIX

negroes, the Eighth Commandment — "Thou shalt not steal" —
blazed in his eyes, whenever he opened his Bible, with as fierce
a fiame as enveloped and consumed Achan for sitting on the
stolen treasures in his tent and swearing he was not the thief.
Theft is theft, and the Puritan preacher was as much a thief
as if he had stolen his neighbor's hog.
When John Brown, the bloody butcher, a vulgar imitator
of Caligula, Nero and Domitian, was drenching tbe soil of
Kansas with the blood of Christian children. Mount Sinai
was thundering at him — "Thou shalt not kiU!" If he had had
ears to hear he would have heard — "He that lives by the sword
shall die by the sword!" — "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed!" But Puritan cocksureness
deafened him; Puritan vice-gerency of God to rule the earth,
blinded him, until, at length, divine justice laid its hand upon
him, and made him sole actor in the last scene of the horrible
tragedy in which he had played, with great eclat, the leading
role, on the Northern stage, for thirty years. Laymen had
shouted applause. Preachers had cheered him on. One, who
ministered and performed Levitical sacrifices in the Tabernacle
in Brooklyn, wherein the Ark of the Covenant had never rested,
where the glory of tbe Shechina — ^witness to the presence of
the Holy Spirit — ^had never shone — this high priest aided and
abetted the assassin of children, by sending to this murderer a
company armed with Sharpe's rifles bought by the preacher
himseK. But the hour had come for the curtain to fall, and
for the tragedy to end. His last performance was on a trapeze,
leaping toward the ground with a rope around his neck, and
stopping in mid-air. This conquest of the law of gravitation
caused New England's greatest philosopher, Ralph Waldo
Emerson, to proclaim tbat it made John Brown the equal of
Jesus Christ.

IV.
DISUNION RESOLUTIONS AT WORCES
TER, MASSACHUSETTS.
(Referred to on page 218.)
(FROM "FACTS AND SUGGESTIONS," BY DUFF GREEN.)
At a meeting held in Worcester, Mass., just before the war
(of 1861-65) the business committee submitted the following
resolutions :
"Resolved, That the meeting of a State disunion convention,
attended by men of various parties and affinities, gives occasion
for a new statement of principles and a new platform of action.
"Resolved, Tbat tbe cardinal American principle is now, as
always, liberty; while tbe prominent fact is now, as always,
slavery, "Resolved, That the conflict between this principle of
liberty and this fact of slavery, has bCen the whole history of
the nation for fifty years ; while the only result of this conflict
has thus far been to strengthen both parties and prepare the
way for a yet more desperate struggle,
"Resolved, That in this emergency we can expect little or
nothing from the South itself, because it too is sinking deeper
into barbarism every year ;
"Nor from a Supreme Court which is always ready to invent
new securities for slaveholders;
"Nor from a President elected almost solely by Southem
votes ;
"Nor from a Senate which is permanently controlled by the
slave power ;
"Nor from a new House of Representatives which, in spite
of our agitation, -will be more pro-slavery than the present one,
though the present one has at length granted all which slavery
asked ;
"Nor from political action, as now conducted. For the
Republican leaders and press freely admitted, in public and
private, that the election of Fremont was, politically speaking.

446 APPENDIX

'the last hope of freedom,' and even could the North cast a
united vote in 1860, the South was before it four years of
annexation previous to tbat time,
"Resolved, That the fundamental difference between mere
political agitation and the action we, propose is this, that the
one requires the acquiescence of the slave power, and the other
only its opposition.
"Resolved, That the necessity for disunion is written in the
whole existing character and condition of the two sections of
the country — in their social organization, education, habits, and
laws — in the dangers of our white citizens in Kansas, and of our
colored ones in Boston — ^in the wounds of Charles Sumner and
the laurels of his assailant — and no govemment on earth was
ever strong enough to hold together such opposing forces.
"Resolved, That this movement does not seek merely dis
union, but the more perfect union of the free States by the
expulsion of the slave States from the confederation, in which
they have ever been an element of discord, danger and disgrace.
"Resolved, That it is not probable that the ultimate sev
erance of the Union vrill be an act of deliberation or discussion,
but that a long period of deliberation and discussion must
precede it, and this we meet to begin.
"Resolved, That henceforward, instead of regarding it as
an objection to any system of policy, that it will lead to the
separation of the States, we will proclaim that to be the highest
of all recommendations, and the grateful proof of statesman
ship ; and vrill support, poUtically, or otherwise, such men and
measures as appear to tend most to this result,
"Resolved, That by the repeated confession of Northem
and SoutheW statesmen, 'the existence of the Union is the chief
guarantee of slavery;' and that the despots of the whole world
have everything to fear, and the slaves of the whole world
everything to hope, from its destruction, and the rise of a free
Northern Republic.
"Resolved, That the sooner the separation takes place the
more peaceful it will be ; but that peace or war is a secondary
consideration, in view of our present perils. Slavery must be
conquered, 'Peaceably if we can, forcibly K we must.' "

V.
REV. DR. FULLER ON LINCOLN.
The sentence at the end of Chapter XXXIX (page 285)
appears to have been left unfinished by the author, and examin
ation of his manuscript did not find the words which he evi
dently intended to quote in proof of his assertion; but Dr.
FuUer, writmg to Salmon P. Chase about the Baitimore delega
tion 's visit to Washmgton, said : "From Mr. Lincoln nothing is
to be hoped, except as you can influence him. Five associations,
representing thousands of our best young men, sent a delegation
of thirty to Washmgton yesterday * * * and asked me to
go with them as the chairman. We were at once cordially
received. I marked the President closely. Constitutionally
genial and jovial, he is wholly inaccessible to Christian appeals,
and his egotism wUl forever prevent his comprehending what
patriotism means."
Tbe delegation's call on Mr. Lincoln was in April, 1861.
Dr. Fuller was an eminent Baptist divine, — ^not Presbyterian as
stated in the te^t. Mr. Chase was Secretary of the Treasury
in Mr. Lincoln's cabinet. As a United States Senator from
Ohio he had voted for the reception (February, 1850) of a
petition from inhabitants of one of the Northern States asking
Congress to devise at once some plan for the immediate disso
lution of the Union. Mr. Seward, then Senator from New York,
also voted for the reception of the petition. Daniel Webster,
then Senator from Massachusetts, proposed that the petition
have tbe following preamble :
"Whereas, at tbe commencement of the session, you and
each of you took your solemn oaths, in the presence of God
and on the Holy Evangelists, that you would support the Con
stitution of the United States; now, therefore, we pray you
to take immediate steps to break up the Union, and overthrow
the Constitution of the United States as soon as you can." —
T. K. 0.

VI.
LEE AND THE CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS.
From address of Senator Norwood before tbe Alumni of
Emory CoUege, Oxford, Ga., July 20th, 1875 :
But one age has ever produced as grand a character and
great a captain of martial hosts as Robert E. Lee. Tbe age was
a century ago — the man was Washington. The history of his
deeds is enrolled on the imperishable tablet of the heart of
man. The volume of bis life is the political New Testament
to the enthralled of every clime and creed. The wealth of his
fame is the richest legacy ever bequeathed to the race of Adam.
His Majesty, with lineal hand, confers nobiUty on crowned
heads. On bis brow, as be looks down on all mankind, save
one, serenely rests in rival grace and honor, the warrior's chap-
let and the civic crown. That one excepted is Robert E. Lee,
in every attribute the equal of the Father of His Country.
Washington and Lee ! twin children of the same Commonwealth ;
twin offspring of the same civilization; twin rebel-patriots in
the same holy cause ; the very Gemini in the constellation of all
of earth's collected greatness. Washington was the first fruits
and Lee the full harvest of Southern civilization, Washington
was its rising and Lee its setting sun. The threads of their
golden lives form the richest bordering — ^the beginning and
the end — of the grandest fabric in all the varied woof and
warp of time. Between their lives is bounded the only un
clouded day of perfect freedom. The one came up at the
rise of the Republic — the other went down at its fall. Both
drew their guiltless swords in defense of tbe dearest rights of
man; the one, to establish the God-given right of self-govern
ment; the other, to maintain it. The one sheathed his sword
not until the cause for which it was dra-wn was won, and joy
smiled over the land; tbe other surrendered bis sword not
until that cause was lost,^ and darkness covered tbe earth
again. But it is not for me to pronounce the panegyric of Lee,
much less to atempt to draw his likeness. This generation can
not give his trae dimensions. We stand too near him, and he is

APPENDIX 449

so rounded off that we lose sight of his grandeur in the symme
try of his proportions, as one who first looks on St, Peter's is
deceived in its size by tbe perfection of its architecture. The
hour and the man have not come to unveil the colossal monu
ment of his fame. The light of that day may never gladden
our eyes. Standing at its base, as we now do, we can only
see it swelling in majesty towards the heavens, for around its
lofty summit are rolling still the angry but dissolving clouds
of war. But his life in tbe completeness of its sweetness and
its strength is before us. The rich-toned harp is strung, and
its slumbering harmony woos the minstrel's master touch; but
there is no living hand divine enough to sweep the diapason
of its mighty tones, Tn tbe fullness of time, when the present
generation shall sleep with their fathers, and their passions
shall sleep with them; when detraction, weary in its hopeless
task, shall slink away in shame ; wben the next generation as
they move on, shall look back and contemplate bis grand dimen
sions, some Pindar will be inspired to sing in fitting strain bis
triumphal ode and his encomium ; some Homer to tell in verse
of Attic purity and strength — ^yet not so pure and strong as
he — ^the epic of bis life; some Milton to test and prove his
worth in tbe crucible of truth with bis "celestial fire," Yes —
"His bigh and mountain majesty of vvorth
Should be, and shall, survivor of bis woe ;
And from its immortality look forth
Tn the sun's face, like yonder Alpine snow.
Immeasurably pure beyond all things below.
And yet, while bis military renown, which was tbe least
of his achievements — for he had conquered himself and ruled
his own spirit — ^will brighten with every succeeding age, let us
remember that it was not achieved by him alone. It is indis
solubly linked with the glory of as brave a band as ever drew
the sword or fought beneath a plume. The fame of Leonidas
rests upon the altar on which were richly offered up tbe lives
of Sparta's three hundred bravest sons. The laurels of Marshal
McDonald spring green and fresh on a league of Wagram's
field, because it drank the blood of the immortal fifteen thousand
who foUowed where he led. The darmg deeds of StonewaU

\

450 APPENDIX

Jackson, his rapid movements which invested him, in the belief
of the superstitious, with ubiquity, and his sudden descents on
the foe, as he swept like a falcon to its prey, were only possible
because high-born pride inspired his devoted band vrith a
. heroism that wearied out the stars in their march by night, and
caught new strength from the rising sun as they rushed upon
the flame of battle. So is it with Lee, His followers were
nurtured in the same civilization with himself. Under the
gray, in the Confederate rank and flie, beat the great hearts
of many a Curtius, Codes and Ney, If his glory is like the
sun, theirs is like the stars. Wben the splendor of the sun
is veiled by night, we behold above us a few bright stars
moving in grandeur over the field of Heaven, whose names and
pavilions and goings forth are krio-wn ; but in their midst is seen,
in close column, an undistinguished host pressing steadily
onward, nameless and unknown; no one brilliant, but all to
gether shedding a halo around the skies. For ages ignorant
man called them a congregation of vapors. But tbe astronomer,
drawing nigh and scrutinizing their ranks in clear and passion
less thought, has returned to earth with the revelation that
they are an army of stars, differing from each other only as
"one star differeth from another star in glory," And when
the historian, in after times, shall turn his admiring gaze from
the lustre of the greatest captain of his age, and from his
brilliant subalterns whose names and deeds are known, to
scrutinize that mighty host who, nameless and unknown to fame,
barefoot and sore, marched under the banner of the Southern
Cross, he will, from their blended glory, resolve their individ
uality, and tell that they were' heroes as great as ever fought
beneath the Cross to rescue from tbe Crescent the Holy Sepul
chre,, and patriots as pure in their devotion to liberty as the
Fathers of the RepubUc, The civiUzation which made Lee
possible, made it impossible for them to be else than patriots
and heroes. "They were swifter than eagles; they were
stronger than lions," And while we ascribe all praise to the
head that planned, equal honor is due to the hearts that dared
and the hands that cleaved the way to immortality.

ERRATA

On page 17, read Jenkins for Penkins,
On page 24-, omit first sentence.
On page 25, read Dust-and- Ashes for Dust and Ashes.
On page 29, read fantastical for fantistical.
On page 63, read assembled for assesmbled.
On page 71, read Litt. for Ltt.
On page 73, read deified for defied.
On page 76, read exegetists for exegitists.
On page 84, omit the words, — ^in the year, before the
letters A. D. ,
On page 86, read frailties for frailities.
On page 99, read philanthropy for philanthrophy.
On page 105, read perfidy for perfidity.
On page 106, read divided for divide.
On page 107, read ominous for omnious.
On page 111, read I. 0. Us for L 0. U's.
On page 163, read eclectic for electic.
On page 165, read vice-gerents for vice-gerants.
On page 177, read tide for time.
On page 185, read "is presented in these pages," for con
cluding words of last sentence.
On page 208, read "Under other heads has been made," in
place of 2d sentence in 2d paragraph.
On page 233, read "in preceding pages," for "under State
Rights:"
On page 258, read forty-two (in 2d par.) for forty-seven.
On page 267, read owe (in last Une) for owes.
On page 287, read superstitions for superstitutions.
On page 288, third sentence should begin. "As to whether."
On page 296, the word "as" should be just before "the
black cargo. "
On page 298, read confidants for confidant.
On page 304, read quiet for quite.
On page 308, tenth line from bottom, omit tbe word "and,"
On page 321, after "Brutus" should be a comma instead
of"!"
On page 327, read Khan for Kahn.

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39002 002928670b.