The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-08-24
An English Estimate of the South

An article ID Lne o0thTGNY ItSOSeW VI
August 5, reviewing Professor Draper's His
tory of the American Civil War, is worthy Of
notice as pleasing evidence that, in Eng
land at least, the principles involved in the
war between the States are reasonably well
understood, and, also, that disposition ex-
lists to do full, though tarS., justice 10 the
defeated South. The reviewer says, with
reason, that fair history of the war is not
yet to be expected, and he doubts whether
such d history-dealing impartially with the
motives and actions of both belligerents-
will ever be written. Those histories, there
fore, '.must be regarded as comparatively
..fair and honest, in which the conduct and
.sclaims of the South are not wilfully dis
.ported and misstated-in which the writer,
'.if himself unable to apprehend, and there
'fore incompetent to present to his readers,
srhe political aspect of the dispute unen-
''cumbered by ethical questions, which
ssneither of the parties to the Federal COM
"pact were entitled to import into it, at
s'least endeayors to give the facts as they
''really occurred, and to repeat the argu-
ssments of the South as they were actually
s'stated by Southern writer's and orators. y
The reviewer is of opinion that no other
Northern author has approached 80 nearly
to the comparative standard as Dr. Draper,
who "makes an evident and studious effort
s'to be not only accurate but liberal-not
ssonly to state the facts correctly, but to do
..justice to the motives and the convictions
''of men whom he regards as utterly and un-
sspardonably wrong" From such source
this is high praise indeed. The reviewer,
however, believes that a careful reader will
find in DR.. Draper's pages abundant reason
sto doubt whether the North was really 80
'thorougbly in the right as it appears to
.sthis Northern author" He says:
"The reader will find, in short, that the case
of the North res'G entirely on the assumption
that slavery is q crime; aud however little
he may be disposed to dispute this assump-
tion, it will occur to every one not blinded
by partisanship, or rendered careless by pre-
conceived Judgment, that it was one which
the North had no right to import into it's Fed
eral relations. No point was more clearly as
cer,ained, more distinctly laid down in the
very formation of the Union, than the uninter-
rupted and invidable sovereignty Of the States
over their own domestic institutions. The
right of the South to maintain slavery within
her borders was constilutionally indsputable;
1t had been donbly recognized by The North,
In the clause forbiddiDg Congress 10 prohibit
the slave trade before 1908, and in the fngi-
tive slave law, which formed an article OF the
constitution; and having once entered into
union on equal terms with the slave States,
the North was bound, within that union ana
during It's continuance, rot only 10 make no
attacks on slavery, where It existed under
State laws. but TO recognize its existence as
an Institution coeqaal with freedom within
the area OF Federal jurisdiction. 1t is absurd
10 suppose that the slave States were to admit
the enormi!y or even the infsrioiity Of their
own system, and 20 accept its exclusion from
The Territories in which they had an equal
risht-most of which were, indeed, originally
their own. This fact once understood-it
being once perceived that, so long as the
Union subsisted, the South was equal with the
North, and slavery as good as freedom, in
point OF all Federal rights-tt Is Impossible for
a reader of DR.. Draper's History not 10 per-
celve that in the political battles waged be-
tween North and South, the latter was Usually
acting in Eelf-defence, and that in ''ea In suery
case the North ,cas the aggreSSor, and aoas en-
croaching on the equality and infringing the
rights of the South. The commencement of the
lsnd was The attempt Of the North to exclude
States claiming to enter the Union with slave
constitutions, at the same time that free States
were admitted without dispute. 1twa clearly
impossible that such pretension could be tol-
Grated /; it was clear that those who advanced
It did in fact deny the equality Of the Slave
States, and uiolate the first condition Of Federal
unisy. The Missouri Compromise, which grew
out of this dispute, gave ". the larger part Of
the Federal territory 70 the North. and gave
the South only, an equal right in the remain
der. ln LIE annexation Of Texas and the Mex
lcan war the South might seem to be acting
aggressively. But DR.. Draper himself shows
that she was animated solely by considerations
of selt.proteetion. Immigration had given the
North an overwhelming ascendency In the
House of Representatives the only security
Of the South lay in maintaining equality within
the Senate, and to do this it was essential that
she should have the means OF forming new
slave States, to counterbalance those rapidly
growing up in the Northwest. All her alleged
rapacity OF territory arose from this one cause
She had more land than she could cultivate
with her actual population in Texas and in
Cuba she sought not new plantations, but ne"
States; not additional cotton lands, but addi'
tional votes in the Federal Senate. She never
claimed to control the North she desired only
that the North should not be able to domineel
over her. From the moment that she gave ur
the hope of maintaining equality In the Sen
ate, it became evident that secession was only
question of time. From the moment that q
party formed on the principle Of sectional hos
tility to the South acquired the control OF TN
Federal Executive, it ,oas obuioAs that the ttna'
had come AMI no one has ever been able tc
maintain that the South cou safely have re
mained in the Union save on the inadmlssiole
hypothesis that she should have made mp hel
.,,L,a;t or1 pnt only n ollOy her in