The burdens of the Southern People,
B. p. Grady
Clinton, 1913.

•

C\.+ n

\ .

"Igiveinefe Books
for. the founding of a College in this .Colony!'

> yaue °w&wembwty°

Gift of
President Hadley
1913

The Burdens of the Southern People

Ignorance which is to be exposed before responsibility
for our sectional wrangles can be located.

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy ofthe book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

The Burdens of the Southern People.

IGNORANCE WHICH IS TO BE EXPOSED BEFORE RESPONSI
BILITY FOR OUR SECTIONAL WRANGLES
CAN BE LOCATED.

Editorials in several prominent Southern newspapers to which
my attention has been invited, have impressed on my mind the
importance of exposing the misrepresentations which have been
almost stereotyped in our literature, and are guiding the present
generations of our people, and will guide our posterity, into un
truthful and misleading views of our fathers and grandfathers.
The necessity for this exposure becomes more apparent since,
as time rolls on, the old sectional bitterness is disappearing, new
generations have their thoughts directed to the future, and the
struggles of the past no longer arouse passions. I will not under
take to give a list of the misleading authors or of their misleading
statements about the causes of our long sectional quarrel; but I
cannot avoid naming Prof. Henry William Elson, John Clark Rid-
path, John W. Burgess, Roscoe Lewis Ashley, James G. Blaine,
Robert G. Ingersoll, John Piske and Pennsylvania's Professor Mc-
Master. Going now to reliable records, we shall find satisfactory
evidence as to the responsibility for the long sectional quarrel, which
brought on a conflict between the Northern and the Southern
States. A Forgotten Reason Why New England Opposed British Rule.
Although the British and the New England slave-traders were
anxious that their inhuman work should be carried on in the dark,
so that, as Bancroft states (vol. Ill, p. 405), "of a direct voyage
from Guinea to the coast of the United States no journal is known
to exist," there is satisfactory evidence that up to the Revolutionary
war, the British government conferred upon certain British navi
gation companies an absolute and exclusive right to transport slaves
from Africa to the Colonies of Great Britain, and that New England
shippers found that smuggling was the only method by which they
could share in the traffic.
In 1768, as Kettell informs us, a British report stated that these
shippers brought away from Africa 6,700 black men and women,
while the number brought away by British ships was 53,100.
This was an exceedingly objectionable regulation of the British
government, and although New England historians have been care
ful to omit any reference to it as one of the causes of the Revolu
tionary war, we cannot doubt, when we have estimated the value
of this traffic, that it was one of the most potent of the causes which
led to New England's resistance to British rule.
Bancroft says that up to 1776 the British had brought to these
Colonies about 300,000 black Africans; but tables of the census of
1790 inform us that there were in the United States 757,343 of
those people; and if we subtract 47,250 which represents the nat
ural increase of the 300,000, according to the rate given in "The
Abstract of the Twelfth Census," we find that New England's enter
prising business men had brought from Africa 410,093 black men and
women, including those who were smuggled in before 1776, and

sold them for $61,513,950, if the price was that reported in the early
records ($150 per capita). And we cannot doubt that these "wise
men" carried many thousands of these black people to the West
Indies, and brought away hundreds of millions of dollars. Indeed,
these traders were able to monopolize the business because their
ships did not cost more than half as much as British ships. Fiske s
"Critical Period" says: "An oak vessel could be built at Gloucester
or Salem for $24 per ton. * * * On the other hand * * * nowhere
in England, France, or Holland could a ship be made of oak for
less than $50 per ton"; and even as early as 1727, as Hildreth says,
the ship-carpenters in the Thames were driven out of the business,
and in 1766 those of New England, Bancroft says, were selling 150
ships annually to the people of Europe and the West Indies.
It cannot be doubted, therefore, that one of the most potent rea
sons why New England rebelled against the British government, was
the refusal of that Government to permit the owners of the cheap
ships to have a share of the profits of that inhuman traffic; and it is
equally as evident, from statements made by Bancroft, that opposi
tion to the slave-trade was the only Southern reason for objecting
to British rule. On page 410 of Vol. Ill he says that the Southern
Colonies "objected to the dangerous increase of the colored popula
tion"; and in Vol. VII, page 84, he says that in 1774 Jefferson, be
ing too unwell to attend a "provincial convention", sent a letter
in which he said: "The abolition of domestic slavery is the great
object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily intro
duced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement
of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further impor
tations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by
prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a
prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty's negative;
thus preferring the immediate advantage of a few British corsairs,
to the lasting interests of the American states", &c.
The Two Sections in the Revolution.
1. Although, according to a statement made by the late Sena
tor George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, the Southern people "had not
the slightest particle of personal interest" in the Revolution, these
people, according to the report of the first Secretary of War,
furnished more soldiers, per capita, than Northerners did, the num
bers, for example, furnished by South Carolina and Massachusetts
being in the proportion of ten to six, and paid a larger per capita
share of the cost of the war.
2. In November, 1775, after Gen. Washington had been for some
months in command of New England troops at Boston, he became
disgusted with them, and he wrote: "Such a mercenary spirit per
vades the whole that I should not be surprised at any disaster that
may happen. * * * Could I have forseen what I have experi
enced, and am likely to experience, no consideration upon earth
should have induced me to accept this command". And Gen. Na
thaniel Greene, a Rhode Islander, than whom "no one", Irving says,
"drew closer to Washington at this time of his troubles and per
plexities", said in a letter: "The common people" (New Engend
ers) "are exceedingly avaricious; the genius of the people is com
mercial, from their long intercourse with trade. The sentiment of
honor, the true characteristic of a soldier, has not yet got the bet
ter of interest"
3. In November, 1775, while Gen. Richard Montgomery was be
sieging Fort Saint John, he was constantly thwarted in his plans

by his New York, Connecticut and New Hampshire troops; and
wrote: "Were I not afraid the example would be generally followed,
* * * I would not stay an hour 'at the head of troops whose opera
tions I cannot direct".
4. Gen. Philip Schuyler, who was co-operating with Gen. Mont
gomery in the Canadian expedition, was so disgusted with his
troops that he informed the Continental Congress that he intended
to retire from the service; but the entreaties of Gen. Washington
and of the Congress induced him to abandon his intention.
5. After the defeat of Col. Baum's Germans and Indians at Ben
nington, Gen. Stark's 800 militiamen, "flushed with the success of
the day, abandoned the pursuit and gave themselves up to plunder".
6. During Washington's struggle with the British on Long
Island and in the city of New York, more than four thousand New
England militiamen deserted and carried their ammunition home
with them — "a serious loss", Irving says, "at this critical junc
ture" 7. Just after the disastrous battle on Long Island, William Hoop
er (a native of Boston), one of North Carolina's representatives in
the Continental Congress, sent an account of that battle to Samuel
Johnston, the President of North Carolina's Colonial Assembly, in
which, after giving an account of the shameful conduct of what he
called "New England Heroes" — two complete brigades of whom
fled from sixty of the enemy — he said this of "the troops from
southward of the Hudson": "They have to a man behaved well
and borne the whole brunt on Long Island; and that for which
the Eastern troops must be damned to eternal fame — they have
plundered friends and foes without discrimination". — N. C. Colonial
Records. 8. In "American Military Biography", published in Cincinnati in
1829, some of John Paul Jones's experiences with New Englanders
appear. Giving an account, for example, of a proposed descent
on the coast of England, he says: "I determined a second time
to attempt a descent; this project, however, alarmed my lieuten
ants; they were poor, they said, and their object was gain, not
honor. They accordingly excited disobedience among the ship's
company, persuading them that they had a right to determine
whether the measures adopted by me were well conceived or not".
9. After the memorable repulse of Sir Henry Clinton's troops
and Sir Peter Parker's naval force at Charleston by regular troops
and militia from Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, Gen.
Charles Lee sent an account of the battle to President Pendleton,
of Virginia, in which he expressed his surprise at the bravery and
skill of these Southerners.
10. At the Cowpens, Gen. Morgan, with six hundred regulars and
militia, defeated Col. Tarlton's "near a thousand" horse and foot.
"Eight hundred stand of arms, two field pieces, and thirty-five
baggage wagons fell to the victors", "two-thirds" of whom, accord
ing to Frost, were militia.
11. About nine hundred Southerners, as Alden's Manifold Cy
clopedia informs us, made an attack on Major Ferguson's body of
tories and regulars, amounting to more than twelve hundred, who
were occupying the top of King's Mountain. They killed and
wounded two hundred and forty of them, and captured eight hun
dred. 12. An interesting occurrence which has been left out of the
books our people have been reading ever since the Revolution, will
fittingly close this comparison of the sections:
According to Dr. James Thacher's "Military Journal of the Rev
olution", "Memoirs of Major General Heath," Justin Windsor's "Nar
rative and Critical History of America", and some other works

which can be found in the Congressional Library, in the month of
June, 1779, the British established a military post at Castine, a vil
lage near the mouth of the Penobscot, sending there about one thou
sand men and several armed vessels. The General Court of Mas
sachusetts planned an expedition to drive them away, not wishing
the Continental Congress to have any part in the movement, and
promising that "the captured vessels and military stores should
belong exclusively to the captors." They equipped eighteen State
and private ships, drafted fifteen hundred militiamen, and borrowed
from the Continental Congress the frigate Warren, which was com
manded by Captain Saltonstal, a New Englander. They reached
Castine on the 24th of July, and commenced and kept up a disgrace
ful display of cowardice for nineteen days. Then a British fleet
went up from New York, scattered the militia and destroyed all the
vessels, damaging Massachusetts, one writer said, about seven mil
lions of dollars. Then a committee was appointed to devise a
scheme to make their loss a "Continental debt"; and "keen business
instints" enabled them to draw two millions of dollars out of the
Continental Treasury.
It is interesting, however, to record the fact that three of the
nine members of this Committee refused to sign the report, and
that Eben Hazard, of Jamaica Plain, a suburb of Boston, wrote a
letter to the New York members of the Continental Congress
(March 22, 1780), in which he severely criticised the scheme of the
plotters. The Congress of the Confederation.
When the articles of Confederation were adopted, they conferred
no power upon the Congress to lay and collect taxes, and there
was no property which it possessed the right to dispose of. Hence
the records of the Congress occupy an insignificant space in the
history of this country; but, after Virginia gave up her title to the
Northwest Territory, "the keen business instincts" of some people,
as Gen. Donn Piatt called them, managed to frame a "bargain"!
which is explained in the following paragraph:
When in 1780 Virginia was appealed to by the Continental Con
gress to grant, for the benefit of all the States and to induce all the
States to join the Confederation, her title to that Territory, it was
expressly promised that none of it should be disposed of without
the consent of "nine or more States" But in 1787 the Congress
of the Confederation— only eight States being represented— sold to
one New Yorker and a large body of New Englanders five millions
of acres of these lands, and accepted in payment three and one-
half millions of dollars of Revolutionary-war bonds which these
lucky speculators had bought up at about one-eighth of their face
value. In other words, the price they paid was less than nine cents
per acre; and this body of land was as large as the State of New
Jersey, excluding her islands.
The First Congress of "The More Perfect Union."
Turning now from the Confederation, which our historians have
usually passed over in silence because, perhaps in it each State
"retained its freedom, sovereignty and independence," and thev
could not explain how a State could "retain" what it did not pos
sess (?), let us enter upon a study of the proceedings which
beginning in the first session of the Congress, make it clear whv
some people thought they had a "more perfect Union" Our records
of the proceedings in the early days are few, for when the founda-

tion of our long sectional quarrel was laid, it was done behind closed
doors — just as was the case when the Philadelphia Convention
framed the Constitution — ,the public not being permitted to know
anything about the purposes and the plans of the plotters, although
ours is called "a Government of the people, and by the people and
for the people." This secresy was opposed by patriotic citizens,
and a Virginia Legislature sent a request for the opening of the
doors, but they were not opened, and many years passed by before
the people of these States had an opportunity to read any of the
reliable records kept by any of the members. In fact, the methods
of the plotters were never exposed till 1890 when D. Appleton & Co.,
published the "Journal" of William Maclay, one of Pennsylvania's
first Senators, which brought to light that the plotters achieved
success by threats to break up the Government whenever "bar
gains" could not be successfully planned; and to avoid the appear
ance of exaggeration, I quote a few of Maclay's opinions:
On page 125 he says: "I cannot help writing that Senatorial honor
dwells not east of the Hudson";
On page 210 he says: "We Pennsylvanians act as if we believe
that God made of one blood all families of the earth ; but the Eastern
people seem to think that He made none but New England folks";
On page 222, after reporting a passionate discussion in the House
of Representatives, he says: "I know not what may come of it,
but there seems to be a general discontent among the members,
and many of them do not hesitate to declare that the Union must
fall to pieces at the rate we go on";
On page 260 he says: "I would now remark, if I had not done it
before, that there is very little candor in New England men";
On page 341 he says : "For my knowledge of the Eastern character
warrants me in drawing this conclusion, that they will cabal against
and endeavor to subvert any government which they have not the
management of" ; and
On page 371, while reporting the debate on "the bank bill", and
commenting on "the most barefaced absurdity" of the contentions
of Messrs. King, Strong and Ellsworth, three New Englanders, he
says: "I am more fully convinced than ever before of the propriety
of opening our doors. I am confident some gentlemen would be
ashamed to see their speeches of this day reflected in the news
papers of to-morrow."
To corroborate Maclay's estimate of these people, I add what
Edward Rutledge, of South Carolina, said while opposing a plan of
Union which a Committee had offered (Bancroft, EX, 51) : "He said
privately, but deliberately: 'If the plan now proposed should be
adopted, nothing less than ruin to some Colonies will be the conse
quence. The idea of destroying all provincial distinctions, and
making everything of the most minute kind bend to what they call
'the good of the whole,' is in other terms to say that these Colonies
must be subject to the government of the eastern provinces. The
force of their arms I hold exceeding cheap, but I confess I dread
their overruling influence in council. I dread their low cunning and
those leveling principles which men without character and without
fortune in general possess.' "
To remove any suspicion that Maclay and Rutledge were unfair
in their estimates, I add what was said by Josiah Martin, the Royal
Governor of North Carolina, when he saw this plan of Union in the
newspapers. To the Earl of Dartmouth he wrote: "I confess I think
this piece bears strongly the impression and character of New
England manufacture and craft, for the principle of population
on which the great governing power is to be proportioned and

formed, however speciously equitable, will forever in the nature of
things secure the balance to the Northern Colonies, which conse
quently, if this plan could be established, would give law to the
Southern Provinces, and finally subjugate them, as is the object and
ultimate design, I must suspect, of the New England lust of domin
ion." — N. C. Colonial Records, X, 268.
And to still further throw light on the character and disposition
of those people, I add what was said by Richard Hildreth, a native
of Massachusetts: "One large portion of the wealthy men had been
expatriated, and another part had been impoverished by the Revolu
tion. In their place a new moneyed class had sprung up, especially
in the Eastern States, men who had grown rich in the course of the
war as sutlers, by privateering, by speculations in the fluctuating
paper money, and by other operations not always of the most hon
orable kind," including, no doubt, the African slave-trade; and it
is to be regretted that we have never had any satisfactory expla
nation why two thousand men in 1786 enlisted under Captain Daniel
Shays to resist the officers who were collecting large sums of money
which the people said they did not justly owe.
Now to all this it is interesting to add that, when President Wash
ington's first term was approaching its end, and he had prepared a
Farewell Address, those who were anxious to preserve the Union
made an earnest appeal to him to accept another term. Jefferson
wrote to him: "The confidence of the whole country is centered
in you; * * * North and South will hang together if they have you
to hang on"; and Hamilton wrote to him: "It is clear that if you
continue in office, nothing materially mischievous is to be appre
hended; if you quit, much is to be dreaded."
It seems clear enough, then, that threats of disrupting the govern
ment prevented the vetoing of the sectional legislation.
The Statesmen in the Congress of the "More Perfect Union" When
It Assembled.
As we might naturally suppose, the successful advocates of the
adoption of the Constitution in each State were generally elected
to assist in organizing the new government; and as many of these
gentlemen wished to disregard that "sovereignty" which "each State
retained" in the Articles of Confederation, we should not be sur
prised at their want of respect for the limitations of the Constitu
tion, as reported by Maclay.
Referring to a bill which was being discussed, he says (p. 177) :
"I opposed this bill from the beginning. It certainly is a vile
measure, * * * with a design to draw by degrees all law business
into the Federal courts. The Constitution is meant to swallow
all State Constitutions by degrees, and thus to swallow by degrees
all State judiciaries." And on page 393 he says: "King vapored
this day at a most unaccountable rate. * * * Henry, of Maryland,
joined with him; said the Constitution implied everything; it was
a most admirable system. Thus did these heroes vapor and boast
of their address in having cheated the people and established a
form of government over them which none of them expected."
And this reminds me of Fisher Ames's "force" While the first
tariff act was being discussed (1789), Mr. Ames said: "The Com
merce of America, particularly of the Southern parts, has by the
force of habit and English connections been setting strong on the
British coast. It requires the aid of the general government to
divert it to a more natural course"— place it under the control of

New England shippers — ."To procure this political good, some force
is necessary."
To all of which it is interesting to add that, when the census
figures in 1790 required a new distribution of Congressmen, those
who had "cheated the people" divided the Country into Congres
sional districts without regard to State boundaries, and thus pro
vided as President Washington said in his veto message, for the elec
tion of eight more Congressmen than the Constitution authorized.
New England's "Princely Fortunes."
After the Convention had been struggling for more than two
months to frame a satisfactory Constitution, "the committee of
detail," which was composed of Messrs. Rutledge, of South Caro
lina; Randolph, of Virginia; Gorham, of Massachusetts; Ellsworth,
of Connecticut; and Wilson, of Pennsylvania, reported "a draft of
a Constitution," in which were the following provisions:
"Sec. 4. No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature * * * on
the migration of such persons as the several States shall think
proper to admit; nor shall such migration or importation be pro
hibited"; and
"Sec. 6. No Navigation act shall be passed without the assent of
¦ -two-thirds of the members present in each House." — Yates, pp. 261-2.
But "the wise men of the East," as Irving called them, after many
conferences on suggested plans for having section 6 stricken out,
made an appeal to "humanity" and secured a rejection of section 4.
Thereupon some of the members from Georgia and South Caro
lina — and from North Carolina, Luther Martin thought — threatened
that their States would not adopt the new Constitution if this clause
was stricken out. Then there being a chance for a "bargain", a
committee was appointed to take these two clauses into considera
tion and frame a compromise which might be satisfactory to South
erners and New Englanders. This committee, composed of one
member from each State, soon agreed, "by a great majority," to
strike out section 6, and permit a bare majority of a quorum to
pass navigation laws, and to grant to New England slave-traders the
right to continue importing slaves till 1800. But when this report
was brought before the Convention, a motion to substitute 1808 for
the 1800 was supported by all the New England delegates.
As soon, then, as the new Congress entered upon its duties, the
New England members of the two Houses, Fisher Ames being a
strenuous leader in the House of Representatives, succeeded by
methods which were severely criticised by Hugh Williamson, Wm.
B. Giles and other Southern members, in denying to anybody in. the
United States the right to purchase a foreign-built ship, and to grant
to New England shippers a monopoly of our coastwise commerce
and a partial monopoly of our foreign commerce, one result, even
as early as 1814, being thus commented on by Mathew Cary, of
Philadelphia, in his "Olive Branch":
"The naked fact is that the demagogues of the Eastern States,
not satisfied with deriving all the benefits from the Southern States
that they would from so many wealthy colonies — with making
princely fortunes by supplying them with their own manufactures
and the manufactures and productions of the East and West Indies
to an enormous amount and at an immense profit — uniformly treated
them with outrage, insult and injury."
Another result is thus recorded by Prof. Elson (vol. Ill, p. 58)
when discussing New England's conduct while the Madison adminis
tration was struggling to free the commerce of New England from

10
British aggressions^the war being "a measure of the South and
West," as the "Statesman's Manual" declares, "to take care of the
interests of the North, much against the will of the latter": "The
specie of the country drifted to New England banks. Public credit
fell to the lowest ebb; every bank in the Middle and Southern
States suspended specie payments. * * * The Boston banks would
receive the notes of a Baltimore bank only at a discount of thirty
per cent, and the treasury notes issued from time to time at a
discount of twenty-five per cent." And he addds that the Adminis
tration could borrow money "only at the ruinous rate of seventy-five
cents on the dollar."
In this Congress began the bounty system which by 1860, oc-
cording to Kettell's "Southern Wealth and Northern Profits", had
enabled New England's cod fishermen to draw out of the Federal
treasury thirteen millions of dollars, much of it by fraudulent claims,
as President Jackson declared in his message of December 7, 1830;
and Kettell says: "This bounty is paid out of the national treasury
into which it is collected from Southern consumers of imported
goods." The pretended excuse for this bounty was that it would insure
a permanent school for the education of such men as might be
needed in a naval war; but it vanishes when we read what John
Jay said in the "Federalist," No. IV: "With France and with Britain
we are rivals in the fisheries, and can supply their markets cheaper
than they can themselves, notwithstanding any efforts to prevent
it by bounties on their own, or duties on foreign fish."
And it is interesting to read what Hugh Williamson, of North
Carolina, said about this bounty: "I wish that my constituents may
know whether they are to put any confidence in that paper called
the Constitution. Unless the Southern States are protected by the
Constitution, their valuable staple and their visionary wealth must
occasion their destruction."
And that the reader may know who was to pay the most of this
bounty, I condense some of the evidence I find in Maclay's "Jour
nal" and in Senate Report, No. 12, 48th Cong., p. 124. By methods
which were condemned by Southerners and Maclay, the New Eng
landers succeeded in having black quart bottles for the rum trade
placed on the free list, rum being the principal article exchanged
in Africa for slaves, as we are informed by Moore in his "Notes
on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts"; and in preventing
the imposition of any import tax on painters' colors, copper plates
for sheathing, cotton goods, all dyeing materials, glue, hides, skins,
sheet iron, lead in bars, white lead, red lead, sail-cloth, sea-stores in
ships, seines, woolen socks and stockings, tin, iron and steel wire,
and raw wool; and after a struggle in which, according to Maclay,
John Adams, the Vice-President, took a disreputable part, they
succeeded in having the committee's proposed six cents per gallon
on imported molasses reduced to two and one-half cents.
Slavery and The Slave Trade.
In the Congress of the Confedartion which assembled on Novem
ber 26, 1783, Thomas Jefferson prepared and offered a plan for the
government of the Northwest Territory; and in it was this memor
able clause: "After the year 1800 of the Christian era there shall
be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said
States (i. e. those created out of the said Territory), otherwise than
in punishment of crimes."
But when the plan was submitted to the Congress, Spaight, of

11
North Carolina, made a motion to strike out the anti-slavery clause ;
and the motion was supported by all the New England delegates,
rand opposed by Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina, North Caro
lina's vote being divided.
Moore's "Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts" in
form us that in 1638 the "Desire", a Massachusetts ship, "was sent
by the Colonial authorities to Africa and brought back a number of
negroes for whom purchasers were easily found"; but Bancroft
says (III, 408) that the Massachusetts planters assumed to them-
selver "a right to treat the Indians on the foot of Canaanites or
Amalekites"; and since the negro was "gross and stupid, having
memory and physical strength, but undisciplined in the exercise of
reason and imagination," they soon objected to the importation of
Africans, preferring the Indian as a slave. But that there was no
objection to the slave-trade because it was disgracefully inhuman,
we may judge from the following evidence:
1. The Due de La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt came to America in
1795, and in his "Voyage dans les Etats Unis" he says that "nearly
twenty vessels from' the harbors of the Northern States" were busy
shipping negroes from Africa "to Georgia and the West Indies" ; and
2. In President Lincoln's message of December 6, 1861, he said:
"Five vessels being fitted out for the slave-trade have been seized
.and condemned. Two mates of vessels engaged in the trade and
one person in equipping a vessel as a slaver have been convicted,
* * * and one captain taken with a cargo of Africans on board his
vessel, has been convicted of the highest grade of offense under
our laws," &c. Thus without examining the laws passed by the
Congress for the suppression of this traffic, the President's messages
denouncing it, or the reports of the naval forces kept on the Afri
can coast, at the public expense, to guard that coast, we cannot
doubt that New England's slave-traders followed that inhuman
traffic for at least fifty-two years after laws were enacted to suppress
it; and that the slave-traders were not violating the moral code of
New England we may accept the testimony of John J. Ingalls, an
Illinois Senator who was a native of Massachusetts. In 1890 he said
in the Senate, where he had been serving since March 4, 1873:
"The conscience of New England was never aroused to the immoral
ity of African slavery until it ceased to be profitable."
I cannot leave the subject, however, without reminding the reader
that the slave-trade, as we are informed by Bancroft, Dubois ("Sup
pression of the Slave-Trade") and Spears ("American Slave-Trade"),
was characterized by treachery and brutality, "'the horrors of the
middle passage" almost surpassing belief.
Some of the South's Burdens.
From 1788 to 1860 the fishermen of New England often violated
the treaties which prescribed their rights to catch fish in the waters
near the Canadian borders, and by so doing compelled the Federal
Government to spend many million of dollars — much, if not most,
of the money having been collected out of the South — to prevent
the hostile measures which such lawlessness invited.
For reasons which do not appear in the records, when the com
promise tariff act of 1833 was adopted, it reduced the tax on im
ported salt from 20 to 10 cents per bushel, but it did not reduce
the drawback which was allowed when salted articles were exported.
Hence, as Benton informs us (II, 316), the New England exporters
of salted codfish were permitted to draw out of the Federal treasury
twice as much money as they had paid in. In five years, ending

12
with 1854, their clear gain was as Mr. Benton calculated, about
$300,000. In 1832, while Senator William R. King, of Alabama, was oppos
ing a proposition to divide among the States the proceeds of the
sales of the public lands, he said:
"Massachusetts and Maine, which are now selling and enjoying
their vacant lands in their own right, and Connecticut, which re
ceived a deed for two millions of acres from the Federal government,
and sold them for her own benefit, are put upon an equal footing
with Virginia, which ceded the immense domain which lies in the
fork of the Ohio and the Mississippi rivers, and Georgia, which
ceded territory for two States. This is manifestly unjust."
The proposition was rejected in the House of Representatives;
but in 1836 the machinations of some "wise men" secured its adop
tion by both Houses and its approval by President Jackson; and
basing the calculation on figures estimated by Mr. Benton, I find
that Maine, Massachusetts and Connecticut were to have of this
money nearly four and three-quarter millions of dollars.
According to evidence contained in public documents, Mr. Benton
(II, 192) believed that the sugar refiners of New England imported
raw sugar from the West Indies, paid the import tax on it, then
mixed a large quantity of Louisiana raw sugar with it, and then,
having exported and sold the mixture in some foreign country,
applied to the Federal treasury and received the drawback they
would have been entitled to if all the raw sugar had been imported.
In 1839, the tariff tax being 2 1-2 cents per pound, the drawback
allowed the twenty-nine refiners amounted to $20,154.37 more than
all import taxes on sugar for that year — these refiners being all
in New England except "some small ones in the West and three
in New Orleans.'
According to Mr. Benton, New England manufacturers of rum —
most of it, perhaps, for the African slave-trade — mixed cheap whis
key with the molasses during the process of manufacture, exported
the rum, and received the drawback they would have been entitled
to if none but imported molasses had been used. He says: "In 1842
the whole of the molasses tax will go to these rum distillers."
On page 127 Kettell, having made a careful and conservative cal
culation, gives 2,707 millions of dollars as the amount which pro
tective tariffs, by their direct and indirect operation, had carried
from the South to the North during the seventy years ending with
1860; and this was in addition to what the South contributed to the
Federal treasury, and to the vast profits of the shippers who enjoyed
a monopoly of our coastwise commerce and a partial monopoly of
our foreign commerce. And, agreeing with Kettell, Gen. Donn Piatt
declares that "the South made without saving all" — not some —
"that we accumulated." The Whiskey Insurrection.
In 1791 the Congress passed an act imposing a duty on all whiskey
distilled in the United States, levying a tax on all whiskey distil
leries, and requiring all violators of the law in Pennsylvania, to be
carried to Philadelphia for trial.
This law was very obnoxious to the inhabitants of the western
counties of Pennsylvania, because their distance from the seaboard
was so great that they could not profitably dispose of their grain
in its natural state. It was obnoxious, too, because, as they claimed,
it was a violation of two provisions of the Constitution, one declar
ing that direct taxes should be apportioned among the States ac-

13
cording to their representative populations, and the other declaring
thatf "all duties, imposts and excises" should be uniform throughout
the United States.
The justice of this contention rested on the fact that New England
was paying no tariff taxes on the great bulk of her imports, and very
small amounts ot excise taxes because she was entitled to draw
backs on the rum which was carried to Africa by her slave-traders;
and even if there had been no drawback on her imported molasses,
the 2 1-2 cents per gallon which she paid could have been no grievous
burden. Its justice, too, cannot be disputed when we are informed
by Maclay that the import taxes paid by Philadelphia merchants
and this whiskey tax went a great way towards raising one-half
of the revenue of the Federal Government, the other half coming
mostly out of the South.
Having visited the Chamber of the State (Penn.) Representa
tives, where this whiskey tax was being discussed, and witnessed
the passage of a bill, "by a great majority", "against the excise,"
Maclay says: "I feel a sincere pleasure that so much independence
has been manifested by the yeomanry of Pennsylvania. Indeed, I
am fully satisfied that, if a spirit of this kind was not manifested
from some quarter or another, our liberties would soon be swal
lowed up."
This was said in 1791, three years before the "insurrection"; and
referring to the "machinery" of the act, he says: "It is the m'ost
execrable system that was ever framed against the liberties of a
free people.".
The "insurrection" cost "more than one million of dollars," the
South's contribution amounting, perhaps, to nearly two dollars per
family. The South's Share of Congressional Appropriations.
• 1. Senate Document 307, 3rd Sess. 25th Congress shows that up
to 1838 the Revolutionary soldiers of the Northern States had re
ceived as pensions a sum equal to $127.30 per capita, while those
of the Southern States, including Delaware, had received only
$49.89 per capita; and it shows that in 1820 the Northern soldiers
received a sum equal to $5.65 for each one of them, and that the
Southern soldiers received only $1.69 per capita, the law requiring
proof of "absolute indigence."
2. From 1789 to 1845 appropriations for roads, rivers and harbors
in the Southern States (the Mississippi and the Ohio included)
amounted to $2,757,916, and for like purposes in the Northern States
they amounted to $12,743,407— nearly five times as much.
3. From 1834 to 1845 the Southern members of "the old thirteen"
received for internal improvements $653,100, while the Northern
members received $6,328,030— nearly ten times as much.
4. From 1789 to 1846 the North received twice as much as the
South for coast defense.
5. In 1858 there were twenty-three light houses in the North for
every ten in the South.
6. Between 1850 and 1857 there were built eighteen custom-houses
in the Northern section; not one in the Southern.
7. Up to 1860, according to the "Report of the Public Land Com
mission" of 1883, about seventeen-twentieths of all donations of
the public lands, for which, as is well known, the South furnished
most of the purchase money, had gone to individuals, corporations,
Territories and States west of the Mississippi river which could be
relied on to strengthen the Northern section of the Union; and,
while at that time there were nineteen Northern States, there were

14
only fourteen Southern States. And it may be an appropriate post
script to the inexcusable injustice here revealed to inform the reader
that after a Harvard Professor had read the Inaugural Address of
the late Governor Aycock, he sent him a complimentary letter, but
informed him that the people of New England do not feel that "they
can trust the purposes and the candor of the people of the South."
The Worthless "Continental" Money.
As Kettell tells us, the New Englanders owned the shipping, and
enjoyed the slave-trade — Massachusetts alone owning five hundred
vessels, as Webster declared in his Plymouth address — ; they car
ried the valuable agricultural products of the South to England and
other foreign countries; and these monopolistic privileges enabled
that section to gather into its coffers vast quantities of Southern
and West Indian money. When, therefore, "the more Perfect Union"
offered opportunities to the trading class of that section, large
quantities of this money was sent over the thirteen States to enable
these gentlemen to gather up the depreciated bonds and paper
money which had been issued by the States and the Continental
Congress during the Revolution; and they gathered up vast quanti
ties. Maclay says that Senator Hawkins of North Carolina, who
took his seat in January, 1790, told him that "as he came up from
his home he passed two expresses with very large sums of money
on their way to North Carolina for purposes of speculation in cer
tificates"; and adds that "Wadsworth, member of Congress from
Connecticut, has sent off two small vessels for the Southern States
on the errand of buying up certificates."
When, therefore, the first Congress assembled, these speculators
succeeded by methods which were condemned by Maclay, Madison
and others, in having acts passed to grant them sixty-four millions
of dollars' worth of new Federal bonds for nominally the same
amount of "Continental" money for which these speculators had
paid about one-eighth of the face value. And Maclay asserts that
several of the lucky speculators were members of the Congress,
adding this: "I verily believe the sun never shone on a more aban
doned composition of political characters." And the passage of the
measure was brought about by a "bargain". It had been repeatedly
defeated; but the struggle over the permanent location of the
Federal Capitol enabled the speculators to secure the votes of two
Southerners who had all the time opposed the measure. One was
itichard Henry Lee in the Senate and the other was Alexander
White in the House, both of whom lived on the Potomac; and this
change of vote shows that the advocates and the opponents of the
"bargain" had been casting tie-votes in both Houses.
This was a burden of about fifty-six millions of dollars on the
shoulders of less than four millions of people, white and black,
and old and young; or, to state it differently, it was a burden of
more than $70 on each average family, white and black. And Hil-
dreth tells us that even Jefferson, in whose room the "bargain" was
planned, favored it in order to "save the Union."
Another sectional wrong was a law to permit those speculators
who had no share in the deal to "save the Union," to subscribe for
$6,000,000 of stock in Robert Morris's Philadelphia bank which now
became the Bank of the United States, and pay for it with the
worthless Revolutionary-war bonds, thus enabling these lucky stock
holders to draw out of the coffers of other people "a gratuity", as
President Jackson called it in his message vetoing the bank bill,
"of many millions of dollars."

15
Now add together the sums paid for the "Marietta" land, for stock
in Morris's bank, and for the new Federal bonds, and we find that
these lucky Northerners were granted the enormous bounty of a
fraction over sixty-four million of dollars, which was a burden of
more than sixteen dollars on every human being in the country.
The "low cunning" of these "bargains", however, was not the only
reason why they were execrable, as we learn when we search for
the reason why Virginia gave up her title to the "Marietta" lands.
In November, 1777, "The Articles of Confederation" were framed
by the "Continental Congress" and submitted to the State legisla
tures for adoption, but all the States did not agree to go into such
a Union until March 1, 1781, Maryland being the last State to ratify
the compact. The reason for this delay on her part was that Vir
ginia was claiming the ownership of the "Northwest Territory"
which all the States had compelled Great Britain to surrender, and
it was charged that this refusal prevented an earlier termination
of the war. Hence in January, 1781, the month in which Arnold
at the head of five hundred British soldiers marched to Richmond
and burnt public building's, foundries, stores and workshops, Vir
ginia agreed to cede to the United States her title to the "North
west Territory", the hope of all parties being that the money
which the sale of these lands would bring to the Federal Treasury
would pay most, if not all, of the war debt.
The "Conscience of the North."
Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a
bitter denunciation of George III because, it is said, "He has waged
cruel war against the most sacred rights of life and liberty in the
persons of a distant people who have never offended him, captivat
ing and carrying them into slavery"; but, when he submitted his
paper to John Adams, of Massachusetts; Benjamin Franklin, of
Pennsylvania; Roger Sherman, of Connecticut; and Robert R. Liv
ingston, of New York, this denunciation was stricken out.
In "The Sectional Controversy," published in 1861 when the
author W. C. Fowler, was a member of the Connecticut Legislature,
he says that fifteen or twenty years before this time, when a
member of Congress, who afterwards became a member of a Presi
dent's Cabinet, was coming out from a heated sectional debate,
he was asked by the author, an old College friend, "Will you tell
me the real reason why Northern men encourage those petitions
(for the abolition of slavery) ?" The reply was, "The real reason is
that the South will not let us have a tariff; and we touch them
where they will feel it."
In the same work Mr. Fowler repeats what was said in 1859
by Salmon P. Chase, a New Englander who was then Governor of
Ohio, "I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love
him, but because I hate his master."
When John Brown came into Virginia "to free the slaves by the
authority of God Almighty," Governor John A. Andrew, of Massa
chusetts, was one of his most ardent supporters; and when Brown
was tried for his crimes, "every possible advantage of counsel was
furnished him by his friends in Massachusetts," as Alden's "Mani
fold Cyclopedia" says. But in September, 1862, when General Dix
proposed to remove a number of escaped slaves from Fortress Mon
roe to Massachusetts, Governor Andrew objected, saying: "I do
not concur in any way or to any degree to the plan proposed" ; and
added: "Permit me to say that the Northern States are of all places
the worst possible to select for an asylum."

16
In 1836, as reported in Benton's "Thirty Years' View," Senator
Isaac Hill, of New Hampshire, said: "I have said that the people
of the North are more united in their opposition to the plans of the
advocates of anti-slavery, than on any other subject. The opposi
tion is confined to no political party; it pervades every class of the
community." In Rice's "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln" Gen. Down Piatt,
of Ohio, who canvassed a part of Illinois for the Republican ticket
in 1860, and, after the election, spent some time at the home of the
President-elect, says: "He knew and saw clearly that the people of
the free States not only had no sympathy with the abolition of slav
ery, but held fanatics, as abolitionists were called, in utter abhor
rence." And in another place he says: "Descended from the poor
whites of a slave State through many generations, he inherited the
contempt, if not the hatred, held by that class for the negro." And
to all this it is interesting to add the views of John Sherman, a
brother of the noted William Tecumseh. On April 2, 1862, while
Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts, was insisting that the war be
turned into an anti-slavery crusade, he said in the Senate: "We
do not like negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend
from' Indiana (Mr. Wright) said yesterday, 'The whole people of the
Northwestern States are opposed to having many negroes among
them.' That principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legisla
tion of nearly all the Northwestern States" — 'States in which, at that
time, very few persons lived who did not belong to the Puritan
stock. And it is more interesting to inform the reader that, as is stated1
on page 533 of Rice's "Reminiscence's," &c, President Lincoln gave
to Edward Stanly, whom he had appointed "Military Governor" of
North Carolina, the true reason for issuing the Emancipation Proc
lamation, which was that the New England "Radicals" had threat
ened to openly embarrass him in the conduct of the war "by with
holding supplies" ; and he told Stanly that he had prayed to the
Almighty "to deliver him from this necessity," adopting the very
language of the Saviour, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from
me." But let us never forget that Governor Andrew and the other "Rad
icals" never suggested that it would be just for their States to re
turn to the South the many hundred millions of dollars their slave-
traders had carried away.
The Revolutionary War Debts.
Since the Southern Colonies had, as the late Senator George F.
Hoar admitted, "not a particle of personal interest in the struggle"
between the British government and the shipping interests of New
England, and did not join in the struggle till several months after
the war had been raging, the expenditures of the New England Colo
nies were necessarily greater than those of the Southern Colonies;
and evidently there was no justice in demanding that the Southern
ers should relieve them of a portion of their burden. But justice
was a rare virtue then, as it is now, in the regulations affecting sec
tional interests, as the reader must infer from what is said in Frost's
"History of the United States," page 318. Discussing Hamilton's
plans, he says:
"In consequence of having been the principal theatre of the war
the Northern States were most in debt; and if they were to be
paid by the Union in general, it would be at the expense of the
Southern States. The latter, therefore opposed the Government
(Hamilton) plan most violently. Indeed, this was the secret of the

17
long secession of North Carolina from the Federal government.
Hamilton, however, represented to the leading member's on the
opposite side, that the consequence of holding out and prolonging
this difference might prove a dissolution of the Union."
Then Hamilton, Jefferson, Lee and White planned the "bargain"
which I explain elsewhere, though Jefferson denies that he advised
anything but that "some compromise" should be agreed to, "to save
the Union." The Humanity of the Sections.
While Mrs. Stowe, a New Englander, was searching over the
South for a suitable brute to ornament her "Uncle Tom's Cabin",
her eye fell upon Legree, a New Englander who had moved to a
Southern State and become a slave-holder; and then she said: "If
the mothers of the free States had all along felt as they should,
their sons would not be the holders and, proverbially, the hardest
masters of slaves."
This was said in 1853, thirty-three years after "the conscience of
the North" forced on the country the "Missouri Compromise", and
thus violated the treaty which guaranteed to the inhabitants of the
ceded territory "the free enjoyment of their liberty, property," &c.
Some of Jefferson's Reforms.
In his first annual message Jefferson said:
"Considering the great tendency to multiply offices and dependen
cies, and to increase expense to the ultimate term of burden which
the citizens can bear, it behooves us to avail ourselves of every
occasion which presents itself for taking off the surcharge; that it
never may be seen here that, after leaving to labor the smallest
portion of its earnings on which it can subsist, government shall
itself consume the residue of what it was instituted to guard." —
Statesman's Man., p. 155.
Jefferson thus described his first year's work to Kosciusko: "The
session of the first Congress, convened since republicanism has
recovered its ascendency, is now drawing to a close. * * * They
are disarming executive patronage and preponderance, by putting
down one-half the offices of the U. S., which are no longer neces
sary." — Frost, 335.
During the first three years of Jefferson's administration, before
the outbreak of the war with Tripoli, the expenses of the Govern
ment, omitting the public debt payments, amounted to an annual
average of $1,195,816 less than they were during John Adams's four
years. Stats. Manual, pp. 1547-8.
The History Our Fathers Read.
In all the early days the school teachers in the South were New
Englanders or Foreigners, and the text-books were written by New
Englanders. Hence the children of the South had no opportunities
to acquire correct information as to the causes of the sectional un
friendliness in this country, and there was a universal acceptance
of misleading statements about the causes and the results of the
struggle with the British, and about the sectional struggles in tne
Congress of "the more perfect Union." A remarkable evidence of
the result of these conditions appears in a speech which, as stated
by the Washington Post, was delivered about 1852 by William L.
Yancey who according to Alden's Manifold Cyclopedia, was "a
leader of the extreme pro-slavery party." He said: "The Constitu-

18
tion was mainly the product of Southern thought; and the South
has guided the political destinies of the Country from the beginning."'
But Maclay's "Journal" had not been published, and Mr. Yancey
could not understand the full significance of the "wedge" which
split the Union into antagonistic sections.
The Pretended "Wedge".
If the "Missouri Compromise" was the result of a struggle between
what John Clark Ridpath calls "the moral awakening of the North"
and Thomas Brackett Reed, on the day of the passage of the Wilson
tariff bill in the House of Representatives, called "the lower civili
zation of the South," we cannot understand this statement on page-
23, volume X, Works of John Adams: "Every measure of Congress,
from 1774 to 1788, inclusively, was disputed with acrimony"; nor can
we understand this passage in the speech delivered by Madison
on the 29th of July, 1787, in the Convention which, behind closed
doors, framed the Federal Constitution: "The great danger to our
General Government is, the great Southern and Northern interests
being opposed to each other. Look to the votes in Congress, and
mobt of them stand divided by the geography of the country.". This
was eight years before the "nearly twenty vessels" were bringing
black men and women from Africa. Nor can we imagine any satis
factory excuse for the mob violence which stirred communities all
over the Northern States, as reported in Belford's "History of the
United States," Benton's "Thirty Years' View", Lippincott's "Ga
zetteer" (published in 1857), and some other works:
1. In the later months of 1835 "attacks on negroes and abolition
ists were of daily occurrence." Such agitators as William Lloyd
Garrison and George Thompson, an abolition missionary from Eng
land, who had come into Massachusetts, as John Henry did in 1809,
to assist in inflaming the sectional prejudices which might lead to a
dissolution of the Union, were mobbed in Boston, the former, as
Alden's "Manifold Cyclopedia" informs us, "by gentlemen of prop
erty and respectability."
2. In 1835 an angry crowd broke up the school of Prudence Cran-
dall in Canterbury, Connecticut, because she admitted negro chil
dren as pupils, destroyed valuable property, and had her imprisoned
in the town jail.
3. Thompson came over when sectional prejudice had been in
flamed by protective tariffs, but he wrote to the Leeds (Eng.) Mer
cury that "rewards were offered for his abduction and assasina-
tion"; that New England had "universally sympathized" with the
South; and Senator Isaac Hill, of New Hampshire, stated that
Thompson had escaped from Concord "in the night and in woman's
clothes." 4. In 1837 Rev. Elijah P. Lovejoy, publisher of an abolition news
paper in Alton, Illinois, was killed by a mob, and his printing press
was destroyed.
5. In 1838 the Pennsylvania Hall, belonging to the Philadelphia
abolitionists, was attacked by a mob and burned, the Shelter for the
colored orphans was fired, and the negro quarters were attacked.
6. In 1838 John G. Whittier, now famous for his calumnious poems,
faced an enraged mob in Philadelphia, which destroyed his printing
office in which he printed his abolition newspaper, "The Pennsyl
vania Freeman"
7. In September, 1841, an angry crowd in Cincinnati destroyed
several houses belonging to abolitionists.
8. In 1843 "leading abolitionists were brutally attacked and their

19
neCTnnoS t?gether witn a number of churches, school houses and
PhLrtir?:- e^S m various Parts of the country, were destroyed;
neariv fi«u ad a three niShts' riot in which the mob assaulted
TannL , x. ses innabite(l by negroes"; and Arthur and Lewis
,C (natives of Massachusetts), noted abolitionists in the city
wag destro d W6r6 mobbed' and the dwelling house of the latter
rn™™^Feb' 20- 1851> in a letter to the New York Union Safety
^ommittee, Daniel Webster said this about the attempt of a Boston
moD to rescue a captured fugitive slave: "I am sure, gentlemen, that
bname will burn the cheeks, and indignation fill the hearts, of nine-
teen-twentieths of the people of Boston."
10 "Far into the fifties", as we are told in Alden's "Manifold
^yclopedia , "Wendell Phillips delivered his abolition addresses
m the face of threatening attacks of mobs" ; or, as Gen. Donn Piatt
states it in Rice's "Reminiscences," &c, "he was ostracised in
Boston and rotten-egged in Cincinnati."
But, with all this evidence before their eyes, Northern writers are
struggling to stereotype it in our literature that "the North's supe
rior humanity" forced the "Missouri Compromise" on "the lower
civilization of the South." The Real "Wedge."
After the enactment of laws to enable New England to "prosper"
at the expense of the South, it became one of the most pressing-
duties of New Englanders to maintain the then existing balance
between the two sections of what to them was a "more perfect
Union"; and their opposition to an "expansion" of the South, which
led them in the first Congress, as Maclay tells us, to oppose a natu
ralization bill, was the sole cause of our long and disgraceful sec
tional quarrel, as is admitted by intelligent and honorable Northern
writers. Here are some of their statements:
1. In Bancroft's "History of the United States" he says: "An in
eradicable dread of the coming power of the Southwest lurked in
New England, especially Massachusetts."
2. One of the demands of the notorious Hartford Convention was
that the Constitution be so amended that "no State be admitted
into the Union except by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Con
gress." 3. In Hildreth's "History of the United States" he says: "Jealousy
of Southern domination had, as we have seen, made the Northern
Federalists dissatised with the purchase of Louisiana. The keeping
out of new States and the alteration of the Constitution as to the
basis of representation were projects too hopeless as well as too
unpopular in their origin to be expected. The extension to the
new territory west of the Mississippi of the ordinance of 1787
against slavery seemed to present a much more feasible method
of accomplishing substantially the same object. The idea, spread
ing with rapidity, still further obliterated old party lines."
4. Agreeing with Hildreth, Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts,, said
in a leter to Timothy Pickering, a Massachusetts Senator: "The in
fluence of our part of the Union must be diminished by the acquisi
tion of more weight at the other extremity."
Conclusion.
Now, in conclusion, let me remind the reader that when the people
of the Southern States agreed to carry their States into the "more

20
perfect Union", it was never suspected by intelligent citizens that
they were conferring on the Northern States the right to "prosper"
at the expense of Southerners; and that during our long sectional
debate not even the most unscrupulous of the South's critics ever
asserted that any Southern individual, corporation or State ever
asked for an unfair share of the public property, of the money in
the Federal treasury, or of the profits of New England industry,
and the conclusion is unavoidable that avarice alone was the
"wedge" which divided this country into hostile sections; and to all
this add the fact that by 1860 the expanded and expanding North
had deprived the South of every glimmer of hope that this section
could ever enjoy the blessings which were promised in the pre
amble of the Constitution "of the more perfect Union" — 'the estab
lishment of "justice", the insuring of "domestic tranquillity," the
promotion of "the general welfare", and the securing of "the bles
sings of liberty" to all generations nt our people.
B. F. GRADY.
Clinton, N. C, March, 1913.