Year: 1860

Z
lations of the California and Atlantic press,
touching probable dissolution of the American
Union, under certain contingencies duly set
forth We have refrained from noticing threats
on the one hand, because We believed them idle +;
and the language of defiance On the other, be-
cause we thought it unnecessary, or at best, only
provocative. Love for the Union, veneration for
involving so great degree of sanctty, that we
could not permit ourselves to discuss them as
everyday topics. The ground is holy, and he
who treads upon it should take the shoes off his
feet. Until very recently, the entire American
people-south as well as north of Mason and
Dickson line, west as well as east of the Missis-
sippi river-entertained the same conservative
views. But recently, malicious lips, wicked
hearts, ambitious purposes, have overleapt the
bounds of deep-cherishcd patriotism, and pro-
famed not only the garlands which decorated
Liberty's altar, but even sought to demolish
and overthrow the magnificent temple of Liberty
sitself 1t is time, then, for every one-the hum
ible equally with the mighty and influential--to
express an opinion, and assist, if possible, in
allaying that excitement which, from being sim
ply an animated fraternal contest, may soon be-
sanguinary fratricidal war.


We shall not stop to inquire who they are that
demand dissolution of the Union of these
States, or the benefits which they hope to derive
from such an event. That they are bold. bad
men, wherever found, is evidenced from the trea-
sonable nature of their design. We have an
other object in view.


Why should there be so much acrimonious
feeling between the great brotherhood of the
American family? Have they forgotten who
they are, from whence they sprang, and the
proud destiny which-if they remain united
awaits them? Is there man ameng us who
does not revere the memory of Washington, Of
all the earlier Presidents, of the signers Of the
Declaration of Independence, of the trainers of
the Constitution We think not. And yet,
these patriots, every one of them, cooly and dis
passionately discussed, while many Of them
cautiously legislated upon the very subject which
is now producing so much rancOrous excitement.
The North and South were always divided in
opinion ON the subject of slavery. But that did
not prevent kind and familiar social intercourse
to exist between them. 1t did not sour their
feelings towards each other. They were none
the less friends and kindred on account of it. 1t
was no more of a stumbling block in their way
than the Tariff, upon which they could never
agree. Mr.. jefferson contended that terror of
opinion could be tolerated so long reason was
left free to combat it." The States were all COM
loI ,
to the General Government, in order to the adop-
ton of uniform laws, for the common defence
and protection, for the negotiation of treaties,
the establishment Of a national currency, the
formation of navy, and other indispensable at
tributes of a central, compensating Power. 1t
was not to have been expected, nor did the franz
ers of the Constitution look forward to such
result perfect harmony in all the details of the
splendid piece of machinery which they had con-
structed but they did expect that the patriotism,
the affection, the intelligence and the mutual
fcrbearance of the people, would serve as PEN
dulum to regulate and keep it in motion. They
were not afraid to discuss the question Of slavery
They saw and admitted its evils. They passed
acts, ordinances and resolutions restricting it.
The South felt that it was an :ncumbrance, but
the North made no attemptto encroach upon any
of its admitted rights or innunities within State
bounds. Beyond these, the South herself was at
a loss to say what should be done with it. Inyi-
olable under organic sanctions that inyiolability
was then, and is yet sacredy respected. Out
side of State limits it becomes subject for pop
uiar action among those who are to be benefited
or injuriously affected by its operations The
issues are the same to-day that they were when
the Union was formed-excepting only that
larger experience has developed new modes of
submitting it. Congress is to have nothing to do
with it for whether it legislates upon the SUBJ
ject one way or the other, it infcts an injury !;
and the right so to do, is not recognised as one
of the legitimate powers of this Government.


Our forefathers conceded that majorities ought
to rule. This is the true American, Democratic,
Republican doctrine. When it is denied, the
Government fails to meet the expectations of its
founders-it ceases to be a Republic, and be-
comes an anarchy. So thought the early patri-
OTIS, and so they acted. They made no threats of
disunion. They met the slavery question fairly
and squarely. They argued it p.lilosophicaly
and logically. Philosophically, because great
minds always grapple serious subjects with a
determination not to be excited confused or
overcome by the difficulties which they involve.
Logically, because they knew if the people in any
portion Of the free territory desired slavery they
would have it andif they refused it, it would be
useless to attempt forcing it upon them. They
resisted the tea, and the stamp-tax, and the
many other burthens sought to be imposed upon
them by the mother country, when they were
weak, and gained their point. How much more
determined would they not be, that they are
strong, and in every way better prepared for the
contest?


Between the Northern and Southern elements
of dissonance, non-interyention is the true poll
cy. In fact the South consented to this doctrine
in 1856. Or, more correctly, she presented it,
and it was accepted by the North. The Presi-
dentiaI contest of that year was fnucht ,Iuon II