The news & observer., 1901-05-11

| legislative body could give legal exist
ence to slavery in any territory of the
United States This claim ignored, OF
rather set at defiance, the Dred Sect
| decision of the Supreme Court, and in
| deed the personal liberty bills of many OF
| the Northern States had already nulli-
fed that decision and the laws of which
it was the Interpretation.
The vote by which Mr.. Lincoln was
| elected was a large minority of the popu-
! lar vote-nearly one miIIion-yet he had
considerable majority in the electoral
college. In the Southern States he had
no electoral ticket at all; and there, too,
was food for grave thought. If, adher-
ing to the mere forms of the Constitu-
tion, man could be elected to the Presi-
dency by vote strictly sectional and
upon one issue avowedly sectional, why
not upon any other, however regardless
of the rights and interests of another
section? Mr. Lincoln had three competi-
tors for the office of President, and it has
often been claimed that his opponents
could have defeated him by combining
upon a single candidate. This is great
error, and therein is the defect of the
electoral system, and it was a threat to
lege at that time consisted of 303 mem
bers, making 152 votes necessary to a
choice Mr.. Lincoln received $50 votes
in all though in a minority of nearly a
million in the popular vote But in Is
Of the Northern and Western States, hav-
ing 157 votes in the Electoral College,
he had also clear majorities of the popu-
lar vote over the combined votes of the
"a
cases he would have had a majority of
Is in the Electoral College even if there
had been but one competitor. Examina-
tion of the official figures will prove the
correctness Of this statement.
Seven of the Southern States consid-
cred this election of president by a
sectional vote upon a sectional issue a
menace to their liberties and interests
necessitating a change in their general
government? They therefore by conven-
tion of the people, and by popular vote,
withdrew from the Union of the States,
as the only legal and peaceable remedy
for sectional differences Without at
tempting to argue the question it would
seem that these States had sufficient war
rant and precedent for their acts in the
following words of the Declaration Of IN
dependence itself: 1T is the right Of
the people to alter, or to abolish, and to
institute new government, laying it's
foundation in such principles, and or
ganizing its powers in such form as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their
safety and happiness
Such new government these States
organized and established at Montgomery,
Ala. in February, 1861.
The States of North Carolina, Virginia
Tennessee and Arkansas were not parties
to this movement. 1t was deemed best
to wait further action by the people of
the Northern States, or for an covert
act" as it was termed. In February,
1851, an act of the General Assembly of
North Carolina submitted to the vote OF
OUR people the question Of calling con-
vention of the people which was to take
into consideration the question of the Sc
cession of the States from the Union The
interest in this matter and the excite
ment throughout the State were very
great There were able and active advo-
Gates both in favor Of, and in opposition
to, secession, and the result of the, cleo
tion was the defeat of the call for con-
vention by the small majority of 1874
votes. vote with a similar result and
by much larger majority, was also had
in Tennessee.
Fdr some reason it has been believed,
and often stated, by many of our people
that the majority in the State against
the call of a convention was very large,
some say overwhelming. Like many
other popular beliefs, and much of social
ed history, it has no foundation in fact.
The above are the official figures, as may
be seen by referring to the published vote
of the State, and the proclamation OF
Gov. Ellis announcing the same.
FORTS HELD BY FEDERAL TROOPS.
At the time of the withdrawal of South
Carolina from the Union, Forts Moultrie
in Charleston harbor and Pickens near
Pensacola, Florida, were garrisoned and
held by Federal troops.
South Carolina, being no longer in the
Union, sent Commissioners to Washington
to treat for the peaceable possession OF
the forts at Charleston, promising that
there should be no attack upon the forts
pending negotiations The United States
Government did not consent to surren-
der the forts, but agreed that the mill
tary status of the forts should not be dis
turbed." In spite of this Major Ander-
son, in command at Moultrle, on the
night of December 26th 1860, spiked the
guns at that fort, burned their carriages
and transferred the garrison, with equip
ments and stores, to Fort Sumter. This
was plainly a violation of faith and
agreement, and the State at once seized
and occupied all forts, arsenals and other
public buildings within its borders. Other
States quickly followed this example and
forts in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and
elsewhere were seized and garrisoned by
the State Government to prevent their
occupation by the United States Govern
ment.
On the 1st of January, 1861, commit
tee from Wilmington waited on Gov
ernor Ellis at Raleigh and urged occu-
paticn of Fort Caswell at the mouth of
the Cape Fear River For this there
was no authority, North Carolina being
still in the Union and the request was,
of course, refused; but on January 10th.
the fort was entered and occupied by a
body of men, without organization, from
Wilmington and Smithville (now South
port.) They were promptly ordered out
by the Governor and the fort was restor-
ed to the Federal authorities. This is
mentioned to show the excitement and
intensity of feeling at the time.
The government refused to exacuate