The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1861-09-13

assaults made upon her CIVIL ana uOlhesIic
institutions. 1t would be, on my part, very
uncandid to disguise the conviction thai 10
this respect the South has had much reason
to complain. Leaving, however, opinions
to fluctuate as they may, will simply give
you my own as to the primary causes OF our
present strife.
You know that free speech and tree
press are essential constituents of the first
notions of Anglo Saxon liberty. These
were the shibboleth of its existence, pros
perity and prospects. In the exercise OF
these peculiar privileges the North OF this
country has used its type and tongue often.
siyely against the South. Neither was the
South backward in the work of retaliation
on the same principle. But the Anglo
Saxon, whether OF the South or of the
North, would see the whole world set in a
blaze rather than put limits to the freedom
of the press or the unbridled license of the
tongue, except when the laws interpose for
the protection of the public authority or
individual rights of character and property.
At the commencement of our national
institution as an independent State, slave
nv, for instance, was found to exist, almost
universally, in the North as we'll as the
South. The word itself was not used in
any of the paragraphs found in the Magma
Charta of our Government. The slave trade
from the western coast of Africa had been
encouraged by the subjects of the govern
ment OF Great Britain. The government
of England did not hesitate to affix its veto
on some of the enactments made by the re-
cognized local authorities of the Colonies,
for the diminution of the slave trade. 1t
would appear that, from this trade, so
abominable in its primary origin, there
were certain emOuments accruiDg to the
treasury of the mother country. And these
emOluments were looked to as source of
revenue, just as some countries in Europe,
in their sovereign capacity, mOnopolze the
largest portion of profits resulting from
commerce in salt and tobacco.
After the Revolution slavery was grad
ually dispensed with in all the Northern
States. Whether this was done from what
would now appear sense OF humanity, or
from motives OF domestic or political lucre,
it will be for you, as for me, private right
to determine each according to bis own
opinion. But slavery was social element
recognized in all the States at the period of
the Revolution. So far, the changes that
have supervened in reference to slavery
have been all in the North, and the South
is to-day as to this matter in Statu quo, just
as she was at the period of the Declaration
of Independence. The Northern States, in
the exercise of their acknowledged right,
repudiated slavery within their borders.
The Southern States, in the equal exercise
of theirs, have done just the reverse. The
North, unrepentiDg OF many sins of its own,
has exhibited great remOrse for the sins OF
its neighbors. a portion of its inhabitants
talk in certain style, not only of this SUBJ
ject, but of great many Others, about ma
tional sins which, according to its solution
of Pagan ethics or of Christian duty, every
human being is bound to correct. Yet the
biggest sin in our day known to the North,
is not what is known IN its own immediate
neighborhood or State, but the monster in
iquity of the South, which, between you
and me, and as the world goes, might have
been permitted to manage its own affairs in
its own way, so that its acts shonld be found
either in harmony with, or not in violation
of, the Constitution of the United States.
am an advocate for the sovereignty Of
every State in the Union within the limits
recognized and approved of by its own rep
resentative authority when the Constitution
was agreed upon. AS consequence, l hold
that South Carolina has no State right to
interfere with the internal affairs of Massa>
chusetts. And, as further consequence,
that Massachusetts has no right to interfere
with South Carolina, or its domestic and
civil affairs, as one of the sovereign States
Of this now threatened Union. But the
Constitution having been adopted by the
common consent of all the sovereign par
ties engaged 10 the framework and approval
thereof, l maintain that no State has right
to secede, except in the manner pro 7ided
for in the document itself
The revolt of the colonies against the
authority of Great Britain is quite another
thing. Ii England had extended to these
colonies the common rights and privileges
nominally secured by the British Constitu
ton, VT have high authority for believing
that the colonies would not have gone, at
least when they did, into rebellion. Indeed
it might be asserted and maintained that it
was not the Americans, but the British
Ministry and Government that supplied le-
gitimate reasons for the American Revolu-
ton.
In the present case it would be difficult
by parity of reasoning, to justify the
grounds on which the South have acted.
think few remarks will satisfy you of
the correctness of this statement. You say
that for many years the South has pro-
claimed its dissatisfaction, and announced
its determined purpose of secession, if Ger,
ain complaints should not be attended to
and their causes redressed; that the South
was all the time in earnest, and the North
would never believe in their sincerity or
their predictions. This may be so; but it
gives me an occasion to remark that the
Federal Government as such has given no
special reason for the secession of the South
at this time more than there was ten, or
even fifteen years ago. The Personal Lib
erty bill was unconstitutional in the few
States which adopted it. New York was
too wise and patriotic to be caught in that
trap. The so called Personal Liberty bill
was never adopted, so far as documents are
evidence, either directly or indirectly, by
the Government at Washington. Indeed,