Note: In this letter to The New York Times by Robert Barnwell Rhett, he never mentions slavery. However, when he writes about “the rights of the South in a Territory,” he is talking about the “right” to extend slavery into the territories. (MpG 6/1/2020)
.
The New York Times, June 2, 1860
Charleston, May 10, 1860.
My Dear Sir: You ask me, in the first place whether I “will support the policy of the State Rights Party going into the Columbia and Richmond Conventions;” and, in the second place, “upon what grounds I think such a policy may be supported.”
I think that the whole State ought to go into these Conventions; and I will assign very briefly the reasons which it appears to me support such a policy.
We stand now very much in the same position we stood in 1850. The contest then was concerning the rights of the South in one Territory—California. The contest now is concerning the rights of the South in all our Territories, owned or to be owned in all time to come. A Convention—the Nashville Convention—was recommended by the Democratic Party of one Southern State—Mississippi—for the vindication of the rights of the South in a Territory. The Richmond Convention is recommended by the Democratic Party of eight Southern States for the vindication of our rights in all our Territories. If we went into the former, why not go into the latter? As I did all in my power to bring the Southern States together at Nashville, and to induce them to act together for the vindication of their rights, consistency requires of me the same course now. I waive—I abandon no right of the State, by this policy. The extreme remedy of State interposition is not consistent with efforts to obtain the co-action of the Southern States to maintain their rights. I am in the old path, it seems to me, and I mean to continue to tread it.
But you say, “Have we not heretofore opposed National Party Conventions, and is not the Richmond Convention a National Party Convention?” I answer. No! A National Party Convention is the Convention of a party which is based on national principles; that is, principles common to all portions of the United States. The Richmond Convention is not such a Convention. Its declared principles are not national, for not a single Northern State has dared to avow them. It is a sectional Convention, called by one section of the Union, to support rights and interests belonging to one section of Union, and acknowledged but by one section of the Union. It arises out of the debris of the one great National Party in the Union—the Democratic Party—and is intended to counteract its policy. It is true, that all those of the Democratic Party in the United States, who agree with the Platform the eight Southern States lay down, as their criterion of party affiliation, are invited to attend the Richmond Convention. This is certainly an objectionable feature in the Convention; but it does not alter its character as a Southern Convention, to support Southern rights and interests. The Black Republicans invite all in the United States who agree with them in their abolition designs, to join with them in their Convention at Chicago. Suppose delegates should go into that Convention (as they will) from Southern States, would that disrobe it of its sectional character? Certainly not. Nor will the fact that from a few (illegible) many States in the North delegates may attend the Richmond Convention, change its character as a sectional Convention. Nor does that other fact, that we claim that our rights are supported by the Constitution alter the matter, for this is denied by a sectionalized North.
But again you say, that “We of the South might be overwhelmed by our Northern associates in the Richmond Convention, who may paralyze our action, or dictate a course injurious to our rights and principles. “This may be done; but it will be fraudulently cone. Northern delegates will come into the Richmond Convention to support the rights of the South, previously laid down. If, instead of doing this, they use their power to thrust them aside, or to nominate candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency who do not represent them, they act a part of dishonesty—they perpetrate a fraud. Such apprehensions might be a good cause, for caution in selecting proper men to represent us at Richmond, but they afford no good cause for not going into the Convention. The fear of being cheated does not deter men from endeavoring to enforce their rights. Because there is a never-ending proneness to evil, that is no reason we should not strive to promote good.
Again, you say. that “it will be useless—it will come to nothing.” Here again you may be right. The Nashville Convention failed in the object it contemplated; but were we not right in going into it? I think we were. I would have gone into it, if 1 had foreseen the whole sequel of its termination. And so now, I support the Richmond Convention, having no spirit of prophesy to foretell its issues, but being prepared to meet them, whatever they may be. You should remember, that out of failures arise that final success which crowns nations with deliverance and liberty.
Whether you will agree with me in the conclusions to which I have arrived, I do not know, but I trust you will do me the justice to acknowledge that, wise or unwise, I am not wandering from the path of consistency, and
Remain, my dear Sir, yours most truly,
R.B. RHETT.