Alexander H. Stephens to J. Henly Smith.
Crawfordville [Ga.] , Jan. 22d, 1860.
Dear Smith, Your long letter of the 9th inst. was not received by me until my return the other day from Savannah, where I was at the Supreme Court for ten days. Since my return I have been very busy with a case in Hancock county. I have noticed Major Cooper’s articles in the Constitutionalist but I have not had time to read a single one of them and therefore cannot give you an opinion upon the subject. In relation to the matter of Union or disunion I have only a word to say and that is, if I thought our own people, our public men and private men, were prepared for it, had the proper elements of character, stability of purpose, loyalty to principle, devotion to country, etc., I should not look upon such an alternative with the apprehension I do. The truth is I fear that if disunion should result, if by necessity it should come, we should be no better off in a new republic than we are in the present one. We should have the same or similar wrangling and confusion. Indeed if we were now to have a Southern convention to determine upon the true policy of the South either in the Union or out of it, I should expect to see just as much profitless discussion, disagreement, crimination and recrimination amongst the members of it from different States and from the same State, as we witness in the present House of Representatives between Democrats, Republicans and Americans. The troubles that now beset and environ us grow not out of the nature of our gov’nt or any real “irrespressible conflict” between adverse interests. No such things; they grow out of the state of public opinion and the character of our public men North and South. There is a general degeneracy, confined not to one section or the other. The gov’nt in itself is good enough—the danger lies in no inherent defect in it. It is in the men who have charge of it, and the people who put such men in charge. The danger is much more radical, I fear, than the Southern people generally imagine, especially those who think disunion would be a remedy for the evils they feel. One may talk as flippantly or as seriously as one pleases of disunion, but one thing is evident to my mind, it will only render confusion worse confounded unless our people can agree upon some line of policy to be pursued and shall generally at least unite and agree to stand together in its maintenance. And if they would do this there would be no necessity for disunion. If they will not do this beforehand have we any reason to hope that they will do it afterwards? I fear not. When the passions of men are once let loose, without control legal or moral, there is no telling to what extent of fury they may lead their victims. Republicks can only be maintained by virtue, intelligence and patriotism. We have but little public virtue, heroic virtue or patriotism now amongst our public men. They are generally selfish, looking not to country but to individual aggrandisement. There are but few now in Congress who consider anything so much as how their own votes affect them at home. This is a lamentable truth. And if we should break up, all these fellows would be striving to get the inner track of each other, each to take the lead of all the rest. It would be a race between demagogues to see who could pander most to the passions, prejudices and ignorance of the people, that they might profit thereby—just such a sort of thing as was seen in France, 1792, and in Mexico now. This is my apprehension. If the necessity comes I shall hope for the best; but I am by no means sanguine. I wish I were. I can but look upon the alternative as little better than jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. We would quit one set of demagogues to try another. But enough. These sentiments I give to you. They are hastily penned and not intended in this shape for anybody’s use and reflection but your own.