New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1861-01-08
general yVool,s Letter.
Tie following is Gen. Wool's famous coercion
letter to friend in Washington:

Tie following is Gen. Wool's famous coercion
letter to a friend in Washington:
TRoy Dee, 81 1860
liy Dear Sa.-South Carolina, after 81 years,
Mr.. Rhett says 30 years, of constant and increas-
ing efforts by her leaders to induce her 10 secede
has declared herself out of the Union, and this too
without the slightest wrong injustice done her
people on the part of the Government of the Uni
ted States. Although she may have seized the
revenue cutter, raised her reasonable flag over
the United States Arsenal. the Custom-house, Post
office, Castle PiRckney and Fort Moultrie, she is
not out Of the Union, nor beyond the pale OF the
United States. Before she can get out Of their
jurisdiction or CONTROL areconstr1Vtlon of the Con-
sGtution must be had or civil war ensue. In the
latter case it would require no prophet to foretel
he result. r
It is reported that Mr.. Buchanan has received
informally the Commissioners appointed by the
rebels of South Carolina to negotiate for the pub
lie property in the 1,arbor of Charleston and for
other purposes. 1t is also reported that the Pres
dent disapproved of the conduct of Major Andef-
son. who being satisfied that he would not be able
to defend Fort Moultrie with the few men under
his command, wisely took possession of Fort Sum
ter, where he could protect himself and the coun
try from the disgrace which might have occurred
if he had remained i'll Fort Moultre. Being the
commander in the harbor, he had the right to oc-
! cupy Fort Sumter, an act which the safety of the
Union as well as his own honor demanded. 1t is
likewise stated that apprehensons are entertained
that Major Anderson will be required to abandon
Fort Sumter and reoccupy Fort Moultrie There
can be no foundation for such apprehensions, for
surely the President would not surrender the cita
del of the harbor of Charleston to rebels.
Fort Sumter commands the entrance and in &
| few hours could demolish Fort Moultrie. So long
as the United States keeps possession of this fort
| the independence of South Carolina will only be
| in name and not in fact. If, however, it should be
| surrendered to South Carolina, which do not ap-
prehend the smothered indignation of the free
| States would be reused beyond control. 1t would
not be in the power of any one to restrain it. In
| fuon .tlpo 6a m ba
| to take vengeance on all who would betray the
| Union into the hands of its enemies. Be assured
that do not aggravate the feelings of the people.
They are already sufficiently excited at the attempt
to dissolve the Union, for other reason than that
| they consttutionaliy exercised the most precious
| right conferred on them of voting for the person
| whom they considered the most worthy and best
qualified to fill the office of President Fort Sum-
ter, therefore, ought not, and presume will not,
| be delivered over to South Carolina.
| am not, however, pleading for the free States,
for they are not in danger, but for the Union and
| the preservation of the cotton States. Those who
| sow the wind must expect to reap the whrlwind.
| The leaders of South Carolina could not have
noticed that we live in age of progress, and that
all christendom is making rapid strides in the
march of civilization and freedom. If they had
| they would have discovered that the announcement
of every victory obtained by the hero of the 10TH
| century, Garihaldi, in favor of the oppressed o
Italy, did not fail to eectrfy every American heart
with joy and gladness. " Where liberty dwellS
there is my country was the declaration Of The
illustrious Franklin. This principle is too strongly
implanted in the heart and mind Of every man il
the free States, to be surrendered because Soutl
Carolina desires it in order to extend the area o
| slavery.
With all christianized Europe and nearly all the
civilized world opposed to slavery, are the South
ern States prepared to set aside the barriers whicl
shield their institutions under the United States
Government? Would the separation of the Soutl
from the North give greater security to slavery
than it has now under the Constitution of tht
Union? What security would they have for the
whist whilst, the number of runaways Would be greatly
augmented and the difficulties of which slaVehold
ers complain would be increased to tenfold. How
ever much individuals might condemn slavery, th
free States are prepared to sustain and defend it
guaranteed by the Constitution.
In conclusion would avoid the bloody and des
olating example of the Mexican States. l an
now, and forever, in favor of the Union. its pres
ervation and the rigid maintenance of the right
and interests Of the States, individually as well a
collectively.
Yours etc. JOHN +. WOOL,