January 29, 1861, The Charleston Mercury
An officer in the army or navy of the United States is a citizen of a State, appointed by the general agent of all the States (the Government of the United States) to an office, to assist in carrying on this agency. He is not a citizen of the agency. He is a citizen of one of the sovereign parties to the agency, having all the privileges of citizens of the other parties, by an express proviso in their agreement – the Constitution of the United States – which stipulates that citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and when he takes an office, civil or military, in the service of the Government of the United States, he does not in the slightest degree alter his relation towards his own State. He is still the citizen of a State – nothing more and nothing else – by her permission and agreement, in the employment of her joint and common agency – the Government of the United States. When, therefore, the State to which an officer belongs, withdraws from the Union established by the Constitution of the United States, and thus puts an end to the agency of the Government of the United States so far as she is concerned, what course should a citizen of a State, in the employment of the Government of the United States, pursue? Most assuredly he should leave the employment of the Government of the United States, unless he intends to expatriate himself. If he does not leave the employment of this Government, he will be like a citizen who emigrates to France and enlists in her army or navy. He is no longer a citizen of the State to which he once belonged. He is in the pay and employment of a Government agency to which his native State is not a party. He chooses to transfer his citizenship and allegiance to another power. Whether such a course shall be morally right or honorable, will depend upon the relations which shall exist between his State and her late associates in a common Union and Government after their connection shall be dissolved. If relations of peace and amity continued to exist, there is no obligation of duty which will forbid him to change his country and allegiance. If he thinks that his personal interests require the change, let him do it. But if, on the contrary, on the dissolution of the connection between his State and her late associate in a common Government, these associates attempt to use the agency of the Government, of which he is an officer, to invade his State and to overthrow her liberties and independence – what course ought he then to pursue? Most clearly every dictate of social duty, gratitude, or of honor will require him to leave the employment of the Government which is to be used against his native State, and to go to her aid and assistance. He became an officer in this Government only because he was a citizen of his State. It was her patronage and her power which gave him his office. To hold on to it, and to use it, at the bidding and in the employment of a Government which she has cast off, to invade or oppress her, is an act of hideous moral delinquency, ingratitude, dishonor and treachery – a crime striking at the root of society itself. In a time of peril no man should desert his country; but not only to desert her, but to join her enemies to subdue or destroy her, is a crime of so deep a dye that history in all ages has marked it as amongst the most flagrant in its infamy, degradation and wickedness.