Изображения страниц

Sumter fully kept; wait and see," when he must have known that nothing was further from the truth, and as events then transpiring conclusively showed. Judge Campbell wrote two letters to Mr. Seward, setting out all the details of the deception practiced on the Commissioners through him and Justice Nelson, and asked an explanation of his conduct. But no explanation was ever given, simply because there was none that could be given. And Mr. Seward's own memorandum, made by him at the time, shows that he was acting all through this matter with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Lincoln. History affords but few parallels, if any, to such base conduct on the part of those occupying the high and responsible positions then held by these men. The only excuse that can be given for this conduct, is that they regarded it as a legitimate deception to practice in a war which they had then already inaugurated.


Mr. George Lunt of Massachusetts, in speaking of the occurrences at Fort Sumter, uses this cautiously framed language, as the question of which side commenced the war is one about which the North is very sensitive. As we know, on the 7th of April, 1861, President Davis said:

"With the Lincoln administration rests the responsibility of precipitating a collision and the fearful evils of protracted civil war.” And so Mr. Lunt says:

"Whether the appearance of this fleet (the Relief Squadron) under the circumstances could be considered a pacific or hostile demonstration may be left to inference. Whether its total inaction during the fierce bombardment of the fort and its defenses continued for days, and until its final surrender, justly bears the aspect of an intention to avoid the charge of aggression, and to give the whole affair the appearance of defense merely, may also be referred to the judgment of the reader.”

The question also occurs, he says

66 Whether this sudden naval demonstration was not a palpable violation of the promised 'faith as to Sumter fully kept,' as to be

an unmistakable menace of 'aggression,' if not absolute aggression itself."

And he further says:

"It should also be considered that when the fleet came to anchor off Charleston bar, it was well known that many other and larger vessels of war, attended by transports containing troops and surf boats, and all the necessary means of landing forces, had already sailed from Northern ports-destination unknown'-and that very considerable time must have been requisite to get this expedition ready for sea, during the period that assurances had been so repeatedly given of the evacuation of the fort.

[ocr errors]

"It bore the aspect certainly of a manœuvre, which military persons, and sometimes, metaphorically, politicians, denominate stealing a march.""

He says further on:

66 It was intended to draw the fire' of the Confederates, and was a silent aggression, with the object of producing an active aggression from the other side."

This very cautious statement from this Northern writer, clearly makes the Lincoln Government the REAL AGGRESSOR, under the principle before enunciated by Mr. Hallam.

Mr. Williams, the Massachusetts writer before quoted from, says: "There was no need for war. The action of the Southern States was legal and constitutional, and history will attest that it was reluctantly taken in the last extremity, in the hope of thereby saving their whole constitutional rights and liberties from destruction by Northern aggression, which had just culminated in triumph at the Presidential election by the union of the North against the South."

And he says further on:

"The South was invaded, and a war of subjugation, destined to be the most gigantic which the world has ever seen was begun by the Federal Government against the seceding States, in complete and amazing disregard of the foundation principle of its own existence, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, that 'Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,'

and as established by the war of the Revolution for the people of the States respectively. The South accepted the contest thus forced upon her, with the eager and resolute courage characteristic of her proud-spirited people."

But I propose to show further that this war did not really begin with the sailing of that Northern fleet, and certainly not at Fort Sumter; and that the first blow was actually struck by John Brown and his followers, as the representatives of the abolitionists of the North, in October, 1859, at Harper's Ferry, Va.


A Northern writer says of the "John Brown Raid " :

"Of course, a transaction so flagitious, with its attendant circumstances, affording such unmistakable proof of the spirit by which no small portion of the Northern population was actuated, could not but produce the profoundest impression upon the people of the South. Here was an open and armed aggression, whether clearly understood and encouraged beforehand, certainly exulted in afterwards, by persons of a very different standing from that of the chief actor in this bloody incursion into a peaceful State."

John Brown and his associates did attempt insurrection, and did commit murder in that attempt, upon the peaceful, harmless citizens of Virginia, and he expiated these, among the highest crimes known to the law, upon a felon's gallows. How was that execution received at the North? And in what way did the representatives of the Republican party endorse and adopt as their own the conduct of this felon in his outrages, his "first blow" struck against the South? We will let the same Northern writer tell. He says:

"In the tolling of bells and the firing of minute guns upon the occasion of Brown's funeral; the meeting-houses were draped in mourning as for a hero; the prayers offered; the sermons and discourses pronounced in his honor as for a saint."

Two of Brown's accomplices were fugitives from justice, one in the State of Ohio, and the other in that of Iowa. Requisitions were

issued for them by the Governor of Virginia; and the Governor of each of these Northern States refused to surrender the criminal, thus making themselves, and the people they represented, to a degree at least, particeps criminis. And the newspapers have recently informed us that the present Chief Magistrate of this nation, and the head of the same party, which deified John Brown, and approved of his crimes, has visited and stood "uncovered" at his grave, as if he still recognized him as the "forerunner" of him whom they term the "Savior of the Country"; so we regard, and rightly regard, his attempted insurrection, as the legitimate forerunner of the cruel, illegal and unjustifiable war, inaugurated and waged by Mr. Lincoln against the South.


But we advance still a step further in the argument, to show from Northern authorities alone still other aggressions of the North against the South, in bringing on this war. In his speech, entitled "Under the Flag," delivered in Boston, April 21st, 1861, Wendell Phillips used this language, which we are persuaded, is the opinion of many misinformed people to-day, both at the North and at the South. He says:

"For thirty years the North has exhausted conciliation and compromise. They have tried every expedient; they have relinquished every right, they have sacrificed every interest, they have smothered keen sensibility to natinal honor, and Northern weight and supremacy in the Union; have forgotten they were the majority in numbers and in wealth, in education and in strength; have left the helm of government and the dictation of policy to the Southern States," &c.

We propose to show, from the highest Northern sources, that so far from the above statement being true, it is exactly the opposite of the truth.

Gen'l John A. Logan, afterwards a Major-General in the Federal Army, a United States Senator and a candidate for the Vice-Presidency on the Republican ticket, in a speech delivered in the House of Representatives, on the 5th of February, 1861, uses this language:

[ocr errors]

"The Abolitionists of the North have constantly warred upon Southern institutions, by incessant abuse from the pulpit, from the press, on the stump, and in the halls of Congress denouncing them as a sin against God and man By these denunciations and lawless acts on the part of Abolition fanatics such results have been produced as to drive the people of the Southern States to a sleepless vigilance for the protection of their property and the preservation of their rights."

The Albany Argus of November 10th, 1860, said:

"We sympathize with, and justify the South as far as this: their rights have been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms of the Constitution; and beyond this limit, their feelings have been insulted, and their interests and honor assailed by almost every possible form of denunciation and invective; and if we deemed it certain that the real animous of the Republican party could be carried into the administration of the Federal Government, and become the permanent policy of the nation, we should think that all the instincts of self-preservation and of manhood, rightly impelled them to resort to revolution and a separation from the Union, and we would applaud them, and wish them God-speed in the adoption of such a remedy."

The Rochester Union, two or three days later, said:

"Restricting our remarks to actual violations of the Constitution, the North has led the way, and for a long period has been the sole offender or aggressor." "Owing to their peculiar circumstances, the Southern States cannot retaliate upon the North without taking ground for secession."


The New York Express said, on April 15th, 1861, (the day after the surrender of Sumter):

[ocr errors]

"The Irrepressible conflict' started by Mr. Seward, and endorsed by the Republican party, has at length attained to its logical foreseen result. That conflict undertaken for the sake of humanity' culminates now in inhumanity itself."


people of the United States, it must be borne in mind, petitioned, begged and implored these men (Lincoln, Seward, et id), who are

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »