Troy, December 31, 1860.
It is reported that Mr. Buchanan has received informally the Commissioners appointed by the rebels of South Carolina to negotiate for the public property in the harbor of Charleston, and for other purposes. It is also reported that the President disapproved of the conduct of Major Anderson, 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 Sumter, where he could protect himself and the country from the disgrace which might have occurred, if he had remained in Fort Moultrie. Being the commander in the harbor, he had the right to occupy Fort Sumter, an act which the safety of the Union as well as his own honor demanded. It is likewise stated that apprehensions are entertained that Major Anderson will be required to abandon Fort Sumter and re-occupy Fort Moultrie. There can be no foundation for such apprehensions; for surely the President would not surrender the citadel of the harbor of Charleston to rebels. Fort Sumter commands the entrance, and in a 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 I do not apprehend, the smothered indignation of the free states would be roused beyond control. It would not be in the power of any one to restrain it. In twenty days two hundred thousand men would be in readiness to take vengeance on all who would betray the Union into the hands of its enemies. Be assured that I do not exaggerate the feelings of the people. They are already sufficiently excited at the attempt to dissolve the Union, for no other reason than that they constitutionally 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 Sumter therefore ought not, and I presume will not, be delivered over to South Carolina. I 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 may expect to reap the whirlwind. The leaders of South Carolina could not have noticed that we live in an 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 nineteenth century, Garibaldi, in favor of the oppressed of Italy, did not fail to electrify 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 in the free States, to be surrendered because South Carolina desires it in order to extend the area of slavery. With a Christianized Europe and nearly all the civilized world opposed to slavery, are the Southern States prepared to set aside the barriers which shield and protect their institutions under the United States government? Would the separation of the South from the North, give greater security to slavery than it has now under the Constitution of the Union? What security would they have for the return of runaway slaves? I apprehend none; whilst the number of runaways would be greatly augmented, and the difficulties of which slaveholders complain would be increased ten-fold. However much individuals might condemn slavery, the Free States are prepared to sustain and defend it as guarantied by the Constitution.
In conclusion, I would avoid the bloody and desolating example of the Mexican States. I am now, and forever, in favor of the Union, its preservation, and the rigid maintenance of the rights and interests of the States, individually as well as collectively.
Yours, &c.,
John E. Wool.
