Page images
PDF
EPUB

State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.

B.

GEORGIA PLATFORM OF 1850.

To the end that the position of this State may be clearly apprehended by her Confederates of the South and of the North, and that she may be blameless of all future consequences

Be it resolved by the people of Georgia in Convention assembled, First. That we hold the American Union secondary in importance only to the rights and principles it was designed to perpetuate. That past associations, present fruition, and future prospects, will bind us to it so long as it continues to be the safe-guard of those rights and principles.

Second. That if the thirteen original Parties to the Compact, bordering the Atlantic in a narrow belt, while their separate interests were in embryo, their peculiar tendencies scarcely developed, their revolutionary trials and triumphs still green in memory, found Union impossible without compromise, the thirty-one of this day may well yield somewhat in the conflict of opinion and policy, to preserve that Union which has extended the sway of Republican Government over a vast wilderness to another ocean, and proportionally advanced their civilization and national greatness.

Third. That in this spirit the State of Georgia has maturely considered the action of Congress, embracing a series of measures for the admission of California into the Union, the organization of Territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexico, the establishment of a boundary between the latter and the State of Texas, the suppression of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and the extradition of fugitive slaves, and (connected with them) the rejection of propositions to exclude slavery from the Mexican Territories, and to abolish it in the District of Columbia; and, whilst she does not wholly approve, will abide by it as a permanent adjustment of this sectional controversy.

Fourth. That the State of Georgia, in the judgment of this Convention, will and ought to resist, even (as a last resort) to a disruption of every tie which binds her to the Union, any future Act of Congress abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia, without the consent and petition of the slave-holders thereof, or any Act abolishing Slavery in places within the slave-holding States, purchased by the United States for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, navy-yards, and other like purposes; or in any Act suppressing the slave-trade between slave

holding States; or in any refusal to admit as a State any Territory applying, because of the existence of Slavery therein; or in any Act prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the Territories of Utah and New Mexico; or in any Act repealing or materially modifying the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves.

Fifth. That it is the deliberate opinion of this Convention, that upon the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Bill by the proper authorities, depends the preservation of our much loved Union.

C.

LETTER OF THIRTEEN GENTLEMEN OF MACON, AND MR. STEPHENS'S REPLY, ON THE RUPTURE IN THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, AT CHARLESTON, IN 1860.

MACON, Ga., MAY 5th, 1860.

SIR: We are alarmed by the state of things developed in the Demecratic Convention at Charleston. The discord and disorganizing spirit which prevailed there threaten the integrity and overthrow of the Democratic Party. We are filled with painful forebodings at the prospect of the Democratic Party being slaughtered in the house of its friends—a catastrophe which will put in equal peril the Union of the States and the safety of the South., Clinging to the fate and fortunes of both, we invoke your counsels in this crisis. We believe the Democracy of Georgia should be represented in the adjourned National Convention at Baltimore. Will you please give us your views candidly and promptly for publication?

Your friends and fellow-citizens,

ROBERT COLLINS, JOHN J. GRESHAM, JAS. W.
ARMSTRONG, JAMES DEAN, JOHN B. Ross,
PULASKI S. HOLT, A. E. COCHRAN, W. K.
DEGRAFFENRIED, SAMUEL B. HUNTER,
JOSEPHI CLISBY, THOMAS L. Ross, JAMES
A. NISBET, WM. LUNDY.

CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., MAY 9, 1860. GENTLEMEN: Your letter, of the 5th inst., was received last night, and I promptly respond to your call as clearly and fully as a heavy press of business engagements will permit. I shall endeavor to be no less pointed and explicit than candid. You do not, in my judgment, over-estimate the importance of the questions now pressing upon the public mind, growing out of the disruption of the Charleston Convention. While I was not greatly surprised at that result, considering the

elements of its composition, and the general distemper of the times, still I deeply regret it, and, with you, look with intense interest to the consequences. What is done cannot be undone or amended; that must remain irrevocable. It would, therefore, be as useless, as ungracious, to indulge in any reflections, as to whose fault the rupture was owing to. Perhaps, and most probably, undue excitement and heat of passion, in pursuit of particular ends connected with the elevation or overthrow of particular rivals for preferment, more than any strong desire, guided by cool judgment, so necessary on such occasions, to advance the public good, was the real cause of the rupture. Be that as it may, however, what is now to be done, and what is the proper course to be taken? To my mind the course seems to be clear.

A State Convention should be called at an early day—and that Convention should consider the whole subject calmly, and dispassionately, with "the sober second thought," and determine whether to send a representation to Richmond or to Baltimore. The correct determination of this question, as I view it, will depend upon another; and that is, whether the doctrine of Non-Intervention by Congress, with Slavery in the Territories, ought to be adhered to, or abandoned by the South. This is a very grave and serious question, and ought not to be decided rashly or intemperately. No such small matters, as the promotion of this or that individual, however worthy or unworthy, ought to enter into its consideration. It is a great subject of public policy, affecting the vast interests of the present and the future. It may be unnecessary, and entirely useless, for me to obtrude my views upon this question, in advance of the meeting of such Convention, upon whom its decision may primarily devolve. I cannot, however, comply with your request, without doing so to a limited extent, at least. This, I shall do. In the first place, then, I assume, as an unquestioned and unquestionable fact, that Non-Intervention, as stated, has been for many years received, recognized, and acted upon, as the settled doctrine of the South. By Non-Intervention, I mean the principle, that Congress shall pass no law upon the subject of Slavery in the Territories, either for, or against it, in any way that they shall not interfere or act upon it at all—or, in the express words of Mr. Calhoun, the great Southern leader, that Congress shall" leave the whole subject where the Constitution and the great principles of Self-government place it." This has been eminently a Southern doctrine. It was announced by Mr. Calhoun, in his speech, in the Senate, on the 27th of June, 1848; and, after two years of discussion, was adopted as the basis of the adjustment finally made in 1850. It was the demand of the South, put forth by the South, and since its establishment has been again and again affirmed and re-affirmed as the settled policy of the South, by Party Conventions and State Legislatures, in every form that a people can give authoritative expression to their will and wishes. This cannot now be matter of dispute. It is history, as

indelibly fixed upon the record as the fact that the Colony of Georgia was settled under the auspices of Oglethorpe, or that the war of the American Revolution was fought in resistance to the unjust claim of power on the part of the British Parliament.

I refer to this matter of history connected with the subject under consideration, barely as a starting point-to show how we stand in relation to it. It is not a new question. It has been up before, and whether rightly or wrongly, it has been decided-decided and settled just as the South asked that it should be-not, however, without great effort and a prolonged struggle. The question now is, shall the South abandon her own position in that decision and settlement? This is the question virtually presented by the action of the Seceders from the Charleston Convention, and the grounds upon which they based their action; or stated in other words, it amounts to this; whether the Southern States, after all that has taken place on the subject, should now reverse their previous course, and demand Congressional intervention for the protection of slavery in the Territories, as a condition of their remaining longer in the Union? For I take it for granted that it would be considered by all as the most mischievous folly to make the demand, unless we intend to push the issue to its ultimate and legitimate results. Shall the South, then, make this demand of Congress, and when made, in case of failure to attain it, shall she secede from the Union as a portion of her delegates (some under instructions, and some from their own free will,) seceded from the Convention, on their failure to get it granted there?

Thus stands the naked question, as I understand it, presented by the action of the Seceders, in its full dimensions-its length, breadth, and depth, in all its magnitude.

It is presented not to the Democratic Party alone; it is true, a Convention of that Party may first act on it, but it is presented to the country, to the whole people of the South, of all Parties. And men of all Parties should duly and timely consider it, for they may all have to take sides on it, sooner or later.

It rises in importance high above any Party organization of the present day, and it may, and ought to, if need be, sweep them all from the board. My judgment is against the demand. If it were a new question, presented in its present light, for the first time, my views upon it might be different from what they are. It is known to you and the country, that the policy of Non-Intervention, as established at the instance of the South, was no favorite one of mine. As to my position upon it, and the doctrine now revived, when they were original and open questions, as well as my present views, I will cite you to an extract from a speech made by me in Augusta, in July last, on taking final leave of my constituents. I could not restate them more clearly or more briefly. In speaking of, and reviewing this matter, I then said:

"And, as you all may know, it (Non-Intervention) came short of what

I wished. It was, in my view, not the full measure of our rights. That required, in my judgment, the enactment by Congress, of all needful laws for the protection of slave property in the Territories, so long as the territorial condition lasted.

"But an overwhelming majority of the South was against that position. It was said that we who maintained it, yielded the whole question by yielding the jurisdiction—and that, if we conceded the power to protect, we necessarily conceded with it the power to prohibit. This, by no means, followed, in my judgment. But such was the prevailing opinion. And it was not until it was well ascertained that a large majority of the South would not ask for, or even vote for, Congressional protection, that those of us who were for it yielded to non-intervention, because, though it came short of our wishes, yet it contained no sacrifice of principle--had nothing aggressive in it, and secured, for all practical purposes, what was wanted; that is, the unrestricted right of expansion over the common public domain, as inclination, convenience, or necessity may require on the part of our people.

*

*

"Thus the settlement was made-thus the record stands, and by it I am willing still to stand, as it was fully up to the demands of the South, through her Representatives at the time, though not up to my own; and as by it the right of expansion to the extent of population and capacity is amply secured."

In this you clearly perceive what I think of the proper course now to be taken on the same subject. While, in the beginning of this controversy, I was not favorable to the policy adopted, yet I finally yielded my assent. It was yielded to the South-to the prevailing sentiment of my own section. But it never would have been yielded if I had seen that any of our important rights, or any principle essential to our safety or security, could, by possiblity, result from its operation. Nor would I now be willing to abide by it, if I saw in its practical workings any serious injury to the South likely to arise from it. All Parties in the South, after the settlement was made, gave it the sanction of their acquiescence, if not cordial approval. What, then, has occurred since to cause us to change our position in relation to it? Is it that those of the North who stood by us in the struggle from 1848 to 1850, did afterward, stand nobly by us in 1854, in taking off the old Congressional Restriction, of 1820, so as to have complete Non-Intervention throughout the length and breadth of the common public domain? Was this heroism on their part, in adhering to principle, at the hazard and peril of their political lives and fortunes, the cause of present complaint? This cannot be; for never was an Act of Congress so generally and so unanimously hailed with delight at the South, as this one was-I mean the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854? It was not only indorsed by all Parties in Georgia, but every one who did not agree to its just provisions, upon the subject of Slavery, was declared to be unfit to hold

« PreviousContinue »