0

Washington, D. G, May 10, 1860.^[i]

Gentlemen: Your letter of the 5th instant was duly received, and would have been before replied to but for the fact that I have signed an address containing my opinions somewhat at large upon the questions which you have submitted to me, and which address I expected would have been published before this time; that having been delayed, in the meantime I thought it best to give you a brief reply.

I have looked with interest, but without apprehension, upon the proceedings of the late convention at Charleston. I see in those proceedings unmistakable evidence of the steady advance of sound Constitutional principals. Perhaps the time may not have come for the attainment of the full measure of our Constitutional rights; it may not have been prudent on the part of the representatives of the seventeen States to have sanctioned and presented as much truth on the slavery issue as is contained in what is commonly called the majority platform, but when it was thus sanctioned, approved and presented to the convention, it was well to stand by and defend it, especially against the platform of the minority. Seceding delegates did this with manly firmness, and I approve their action. From the best information I have been able to obtain, I believe the majority platform was not only acceptable to a majority of the States, but also to a majority of the delegates, if their votes could have been taken per capita. If this be so, it ought not to have been defeated either by accident, want of foresight or contrivance.

It is asserted that the Democratic party hitherto have affirmed the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery, both in the States and Territories; but none pretend that it has ever asserted the right of intervention against slavery by the settlers upon a public domain either before or after a Territorial Government has been granted to them by Congress. But this is in truth the real doctrine held by the minority. They desire to interpolate the party creed with it—to make it its rule of action. We cannot hide this great fact by simply shutting our own eyes. The friends of this political opinion have defended it with ability and zeal, have tendered us the issue and demanded its acceptance; it can no longer be avoided either with safety or honor. I accept it, and will give it the same determined opposition with which I have ever met it, whenever and wherever presented.

After the seceding delegates left the convention, it is understood a proposition was made by the delegates from New York to the delegates from some of the southern States, who did not secede, which might lead to a satisfactory adjustment of these differences. Under this new state of facts occurring after the secession, and perhaps in consequence thereof, in my opinion, the seceding delegates ought to meet with the convention at Baltimore and endeavor to obtain such an adjustment. This is due to the altered state of facts—to the magnitude of the consequences involved in the struggle—due to their confederates who agree with them in principle but who did not secede. If they should then fail they at least may expect to secure the cooperation of the delegates of other Democratic States in such further measures as they may deem necessary for the maintenance of the just and constitutional rights of their constituents.

This course requires no sacrifice of principle. The proposed Richmond convention, if it should be found necessary to hold it, can be held after, as well as before the Baltimore convention, and, I think, with clearer lights for its guidance. If this policy should meet with any considerable opposition in Georgia, I would suggest that a convention of the party be called by the proper authority, that they may take immediate action on the subject. For myself, no party or other necessity can ever induce me to give my assent to any declaration of principles which affirms or admits, directly or by necessary implication, that there is any rightful power anywhere to exclude slave property from any portion of the public dominion (open for settlement of others) except within the limits of a sovereign State, and by her authority. This plain principle of equality and even-handed justice should not be bartered away, or even put in jeopardy, for the sake of party harmony or party success. I will be no party to such a contract. It is always true wisdom and statesmanship to adopt the best attainable measure under all the circumstances of each case, tending to protect, to strengthen or to advance the policy sought to be established.

Truth is often slaughtered in the house and by the hands of its own friends by a struggle for that which is impossible today but which may easily be accomplished to-morrow. It is sometimes wise to accept a part of our just rights, if we can have the residue unimpaired and uncompromitted by the partial instalment; but nothing can justify a voluntary surrender of principles indispensable to the safety and honor of the State. It is true we are surrounded with danger—but I do not concur in the opinion that the danger to the Union is even one of our greatest perils. Our greatest danger today is that the Union will survive the Constitution. The great body of your enemies in the North who hate the Constitution, and daily trample it under their feet, profess an ardent attachment to the Union—and, I doubt not, feel such attachment for the Union unrestrained by the Constitution. Do not mistake your real danger—it is great. Look to the preservation of your rights. The Union has more friends than you have, and will last at least as long as its continuance will be compatible with your safety.

[i] From the Augusta, Ga., Constitutionalist, May 19, 1860. Copy obtained through the kindness of Miss Julia A. Flisch of Augusta.