April 2, 1861; The Spectator (Staunton, Virginia)
Having steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that civil war, or danger of constant collision between the Border, Free and Slave States, could only be averted by a peaceful settlement in the Union of our present troubles, and that it was really the interest of the Border Slave States to maintain their present relations with the Free States on our border, and with the whole Union if possible, we have deduced therefrom a difference between our condition and that of the Gulf States. Nothing that has occurred, therefore, has served to change or even shake the conviction, that we have interests in the Union that are paramount—interests that the Cotton States have not; and that therefore we should not rashly imperil them through any fancied identity of interest with the States that have left us for weal or for woe, to work out our own destiny as best we may. We have maintained that it is neither our interest to go with them, nor really essential to our interest that we should. We are glad, therefore, to find so respectable a journal in one of the seceded States, as the Milledgeville (Geo.) Recorder, supporting the views we have advocated. In the issue of that journal of the 12th inst., we find the case thus strongly stated, as follows: “If the line of the Southern Confederacy touched that of the Free States, there being to law or treaty for the rendition of fugitives from labor between foreign Powers, the mischief would be such, practically, that a collision of arms would be unavoidable, unless the Slave States receded altogether from the claims on which they insisted while in the Union, of having their property returned to them under the plain behest of the Constitution and the acts of Congress to carry it into effect. In the simple matter of convenience and expediency, therefore, we believe that the Border States will be of more advantage in their present position to the Southern Confederacy, a wall of defence against Northern aggression, than if they were to become members of it, with all their frontier exposed to fanatical hatred and pillage. We should then have to try an experiment which otherwise we might be under the necessity of making with the Free States, and which no amount of wisdom or valor may contemplate with indifference. If slaves from the Border States are stolen or enticed away by the abolitionists, the game would become vastly interesting in the absence of any stipulations recognizing slaves as property, which we have reason to believe could never be obtained. Outrage would follow outrage in rapid succession, and on a scale of such magnitude that war would be the only mode of redress.” Ought not this candid avowal, from a source entitled to credit, induce the people of the Border Slave States to make every effort compatible with their honor (and we would not have them do more) to avert the catastrophe, before they rush into the vortex of secession? This word, with us, has a deeper signification than it can have in the Gulf States. We trust our people will do nothing rashly.