The Shasta courier., 1861-10-12
Archbishop Hughes of New York.

Below we present extracts from a recent
letter ofthis distinguished divine, addressed
to Bishop Lynch, of South Carolina, in reply
to letter he had sent to the Archbishop,
containing an argument in favor of the re.
bellion. We earnestly commend it to the at
tention of our readers:
have received your letter of the 4th inst.
How 1t reached me, can hardly conjecture.
But 1t came TO me within about the usual pe
riod required for the transmission of mail
matter between Charleston and New York
during happier years, when all the States
North and South, found their meaning in the
words % E Puri6us Enum."
| 1t must have run the blockade, or lodged
the pickets on the hostile borders / have
read it with very deep interest increased, if
anything, by the perils of food and field
through which it must have passed.
1feven the innocent Tightening of the North
were permitted to carry message into South.
ern latitudes, l would telegram you
You say l am reported to have spoken
strongly against the war policy of the Gov
ernment of the United States, as fraught with
much present suffering, and not calculated to
obtain any real advantage Be assured that
previous to the outbreak of military violence,
| was most ardently desirous of preserving
the peace and union but since violence, bat
tie and bloodshed have occurred, dare not
hope for peace, unless you can show me a
foundation of rock or solid ground (but no
quick sand basis) on which peace can be re-
established.
shall beg leave to make my own state
ment from point of view which is found in
the general sentiment of the people north of
Mason and Dixon's line.
They say that whatever may have been the
anterior origin of the war, its immediate
cause was the overt act of turning guns put
in place by the State of South Carolina,
against public military defense of the coun.
try at large, which of right belonged to all of
the States in the Union. The Constitution
having been adopted by the common consent
of all the sovereign parties engaged in the
and approval thereof, maintain
that no State has right to secede, except in
the manner provided for in the document
itself.
Indeed, l am not aware of any statute
passed by the national authority which could
give the South additional reasons for discon-
tent or.complaint within. the last ten or fifteen
years.
/ have thus alluded to the unofficial causes
for Southern resentment. Even In your own
letter the cause alleged is the election of the
Chief Magistrate. This does not seem at all
sufficient to warrant the course which the
South has adopted.
Yoa say that PRESIDENT Lingcs9R vas elect
ID by Black Psp6blicans in the North.
Am inclined to think that he was indirectly
,r negatively elected by Democrats North
md South. The Black Republicans present
d one candidate, and in order to defeat his
election, The Democrats, Nbrth and South,
presented three. If the latter had presented
,nly one candidate, it is probable that the
Rlack Republicans, as you call them, would
nave been found as minus hab entes. But
when the Democrats distributed their votes,
apparently with the view of rendering them
Inefficient, then, of course, the one man
,hoice was elected over che three candidates
Ind competitors that had been placed in RI
ralship with each othe., and in the aggre.
gate all against him alone. That he was
,osstitutionly elected under the circumstan-
,es, = not denied either in the South or in
he Nor,s. Then, if so elected, he is the
Chief Magistrate Of all the United States of
America, and, " his very oath of Office, is
bound by their os-u common consent to see
that neither Maine, IN the northeast, nor
Texas, on the southwest, shall be permitted
agreed upon in the Constitution of this Gov
ernment If States shall be allowed, in the
face of that National Constitution, to kick
over the traces of common union, rs agreed
upon in the primitive days Of our Govern
ment, then it is difficult to see why counties,
and townships, and villages may not be at
liberty to do the same thing just as often as
the freak of fancy to do so may or shall have
come upon them.
There appears to be an idea in the South
that the National Government and the peo
pie af the North are determined to conquer
and subiugate them. This, l think, is
great mistake. First, in the sterner sense of
the word conquer it seems to me utterly
and, if possible, l think it would
be undesirable and injurious both to the
North and to the South. Unless / have been
deceived by statements considered reliable,
would say that the mind of the North looks
only to the purpose of bringing back the Sc
ceded States to their organic constitution
ante bellum.
That word peace is becoming more or
less familiar here in the North. In a crisis
like this it is not, in my opinion, expressive
of sound principle or a safe policy. Its
meaning changes the basis and the issue of
this melancholy war. If changed, it will be
a war, not between the South and the North,
considered, but war between
the two great political parties that divide the
country. Instead of partisan hostility,
wise patriots should rival each other in re.
storing or preserving the Union as one nation,
its prosperity, and the protection and happi-
ness of its entire people, in all their legiti-
mate rights.
1t only remains to be seen whether the
Government is what it calls itself-the Gcv-
ernment of the United States of America, or
merely the Government of a fraction thereof