527 ^1^ 
 
 W89 ^^^ . 
 
 HON. GEO. W. WOODWARD 
 
 AM) TIIK 
 
 V 
 
 ■^JjvrtV OF COW, 
 
 31808, 
 
 (iViilvinmlcivkl (i\outcp.i in ^C^nuuiDlvanin. 
 
 REVIEW OF HIS«1'KKCH IX IXDEPENDEXCE SQlAKi;, 
 PHILADELPHIA, DECESIBER 1:), 1860. 
 
 A TIU'K EXPOSITION ol' IMS PlilNCIPLES ANT) PURPOSES 
 
 WILLIA.M A. COOK. 
 
 CHROMICLE PRINT 
 
HON. GEO. W. WOODWARD 
 
 AND THE 
 
 .#ttleiiat0i;wl $mit%i m mmmmmm 
 
 EEVIEW OF HIS SPEECH IN INDEPENDENCE SaUARE; 
 PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 13, I860. 
 
 W 
 
 A TRUE EXPOSITION OF HIS PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES, 
 
 Bit 
 
 WILLIAM A. COOK. 
 
 CHRONICL.E PRINT 
 18G3. 
 

 INTRODUCTORY CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Washington, Sept. 16, 1863. * 
 WM. A. COOK, ESQ.: 1 1 110 
 
 Dear Sir: — I have read with much pleasure, profit, aud satisfaction, your 
 scathing exposition of the course of Judge G. W. Woodard as touching the 
 great and vital issues of the day — issues involving the existence of this 
 Kepublic. We trust you will gather up from the columns of the Philadel- 
 phia Press — where we read it — and place in more convenient form for dis- 
 tribution the record of a* man so unfaithful to freedom and at the same time 
 so aspiring. Those who intend to vote for Woodward should know just 
 what he does believe. They will learn that in your letters. 
 
 Very respectfully, &c., 
 
 D. L. EATON, 
 
 SAM. CALDWELL, 
 A. W. KIMMEL, 
 M. P. SMITH, 
 
 And others. 
 
 Washington City, D. C, Sept. 16, 1863. 
 Maj. D. L. Eaton, S. Caldwell, A. W. Kemmel, and Others : 
 
 Gentlemen: — I have received your note of to-day, requesting me to place 
 in a "more convenient form for distribution" the letter which appeared in 
 the Press of the 1st inst., addressed to the Hon. George H. Woodward over 
 the ?wm de guerreoi " Westmoreland." 
 
 Thanking you for the kind and flattering terms in which you have made 
 this request, with the least possible delay I will comply with it. 
 
 It may be proper to state that your opinion respecting the letter coincides 
 with that expressed by the distinguished "Editor of the Press'' at the date 
 of its publication. This was Bis reference to it : 
 
'•On our first page we print a letter from one of our ablest citizens in 
 regard to the record of Mr. Justice Woodward. The facts it states every 
 man should remember. They cannot be contradicted, and their meaning 
 cannot be misunderstood. We earnestly endorse the . argurrient of our cor- 
 respondent, and would especially recommend it to tlie supporters of Judge 
 Woodward. Many of them cannot fail to perceive its force and truth, and 
 not a few will be convinced that his election will be injurious .to the liighest 
 interests of the country." 
 
 To produce more than this commendatory notice in connection with your 
 request, as a justification for the publication of the letter in the present form 
 would be useless. 
 
 I have taken, however, the liberty of adding another letter which I have 
 recently addressed to Mr. Woodward", and which I trust you will find, in all 
 respects, equal to the one which called forth your request. 
 
 If time and other engagements permits, I may add to these letters one or 
 two others. 
 
 The fact is, the more thoroughly the principles and opinions of Mr. Wood- 
 ward are examined, the more profound becomes the conviction of his unfit- 
 ness for the position to which he aspires. 
 
 Earnestly hoping that a significant " defeat " awaits him on the second 
 Tuesday of October, and that Pennsylvania will then speak out in no uncer- 
 tain tones against the unhallowed rebellion of the South, and those who, 
 in the North, " cheer it on " by their voices, pens, and actions, 
 
 I am truly yours, 
 
 WILLIAM A. COOK. 
 
.1- 
 
 r^rroo 
 
 THE CANVASS FOR GOYEEIXOE. 
 
 THE RECORD OP MR. JUSTICE WOODWARD, AKD AN EXAMINATION 
 OF HIS CLAIMS FOR THE GUBERNATORIAL CHAIR. HIS ADVO- 
 CACY OF NATIONAL DISRUPTION OR SECESSION, &e 
 
 Hon. Geoi'ge W. Woodward: \ 
 
 Sir :— 
 
 It has been decided by an eminent jurist of 
 this country, that "the right to canvass the ; 
 claims of candidates for public favor belongs i 
 to each citizen." This right, in th(; present ' 
 crisis, becomes a duty, which no one, how- : 
 ever humble, can innocently disrejrard. I, 
 therefore, propose to inquire concerning ' 
 your fitness for the position to which you ! 
 aspire in Pennsylvayia. In doing this, I ' 
 will confine myself, at least tempoiarily, to ' 
 :a speech delivered by you at "The Grand '. 
 Uuion Demonstration," which took place in ; 
 "Independence Sqi;are," Philadelphia, on 
 the 13th of December, 1860. To this neither ; 
 
 ?ou nor your trained champions can object. \ 
 'hat speech was not extemporized. It was 
 "re«d," and hence must be regarded as con- : 
 taining your matured views and pi-inciplcs. 
 That it was "coolly received" )>y your 
 auditors, as appears from the fad that it | 
 called forth no expression of approval, is 
 not suiprising. For carefully prepared as it 
 was, it was a very ordinaiy ])r(iductioil. 
 Moreover, it was entirely out of place — re- I 
 plete with misrein-csentallons — incorrect in j 
 its premises and deductions — coarse and un- 
 founded in its invective, and sectional and 
 unpatriotic in its positions. All this, and ; 
 more, I may clearly and briefly ^how. 
 
 In the execution of this purpof-c, I will 
 not be influenced to the slightest extent, by 
 the appearance of the prefix "Judge" to 
 your name, or by the announcement that you 
 are " of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. "' 
 Positions requiring honor and ability are 
 not iiafrcquently rashly or ?<Hwisc?^ bestowed 
 on individuals. "The doings ol' Time" 
 have convinced many that they greatly erred, 
 when they assisted in placing "the judicial 
 cnnine" on your athlotic form. Besides, it 
 is only when you arc actually invented Avith 
 the ermine, wlitni you are "mounted ujxm 
 your tripod," that you can expect especial 
 deference, or claim peculiar courtesies. C)n 
 all other occasitms, you arc only George W. 
 Woodward. So I shall regard you. And, 
 first, I will refer to the partwhicli you acted 
 in "the UnioE Demonstration." 
 
 How it happened that you were an actor 
 at all in that "great assembly of freemen," 
 it would be useless to determine. Perhaps, 
 it was the result of "factional intrigues," 
 with which you are not unfamiliar, or per-- 
 haps your appearance was attributable 
 to mistaken conceptions of your character 
 and abilities. Be this as it may, you parti- 
 cipated in the proceedings of the demonstra- 
 tion. But how, sir? As an enlightened 
 statesman ? As a pure patriot ? As a mag- 
 nanimous and wise councellor? "No, sir; 
 but as an artful demagogue — as a heated par- 
 tisan. What a manifest impropriety Avas 
 there in this! The nation Avas disturbed in 
 her long repose of qiiiet and security. Hearts 
 were biflamed — minds excited. The demon 
 of discord Avas abroad in the land. The 
 hands of conspirators rudely grasped "the 
 grand old stars and stripes." The eyes of 
 traitors rested on the marble of the nation's 
 capitol; her iuA'aluable and sacred institu- 
 tions AA'ere impelled. 
 
 Men of almost every political sentiment 
 wej-e gathered "in the City of Brotherly 
 Love," neai* the spot AA'hich the deliberation 
 of Washington and JetTcrson and Franklin 
 andttheiv compeers had halloAved and conse- 
 crated, to do Avhat they could to alla)^ strife 
 and to i)reserve unshattered the great edifice 
 of our liberties. Hoav important Avas the 
 assemblage ! IIoav thrilling AvaS the occa- 
 sion ! Hoav sacved the hour ! Then, if ever, 
 partisan aims siioald have been forgotten, 
 and factional passions should have slum- 
 bered peacefully as the unrufl;led billoAVS of 
 ocean. So others felt, so others acted. It 
 Avas, hoAvever, olherAvise Avith you. 
 , Their visions extended bej'ond their par- 
 ties, and embraced the Avbole nation.- Yours 
 Avas confined to the narroAv and pitiable limits 
 of your "political sect." 
 
 They stood up in the purity and dignity 
 of patriots. 
 
 You in the form and garlj of a cabaMst. 
 
 Their Avords Avere mild and conciliatory — 
 yours harsh and denunciatory. Most infeli- 
 citous and ill-timed Avasyour'" read" speech! 
 It Avas so regarded at the time. For it must 
 have been in reference to it and you, that the 
 President of Select Council subsequently ex- 
 
claimed, " tlie people, no matter to what par- 
 ticular household they belong, forgetting all 
 party ties, and all questions of mere political 
 expediency, animated alone by love for their 
 country, have broken the green withes with 
 which political tricksters, of whatever name, 
 have sought to bind them, and, to-day, the 
 people, one great, united people, animated 
 by a common heart, and moving with an 
 equal tread, keep step to the music of the 
 Union." This utterance of Mr. Cuyler was 
 received with significant approval, with 
 '''' prolonged and vocifcrovs applause,'''' and if 
 3'our sensibilities had not been peculiarly 
 scared, this "applause" Avould have crim- 
 soned your cheeks and fallen with stinging 
 reproach upon your heart. It was enough, 
 however, that j'ou were thus directly and 
 promptly rebuked. 
 
 Not content with marring the sacredness 
 and disturbing the harmony of the demon- 
 stration with the aspect, voice, and opinions 
 of an abject partisan, you most glaringly 
 misrepresented the principles and designs of 
 the then "President elect." This you did 
 by a false reference to a speech made by him 
 at Springfield, Illinois, June 17, 1858, insist- 
 ing that he designed to "divest the people 
 of the South of their 'peculiar propriety' and 
 to revolutionize as respects it their ' habits,' 
 ' social condition,' " etc. At the same time 
 you passed by all his subsequent speeches, 
 in which his policy and views were clearly 
 presented. These were published in Colum- 
 bus, Ohio, in 1860, by Follett, Foster & Co., 
 in a volume styled "Political Debates, ete." 
 In several of them he explicitely stated fllat 
 he had no intention to make war "on T,he 
 institutions of the South." On the 10th of 
 Jul}', 1858, at Chicago, he said : " I have 
 said a himdred times, and I have now no in- 
 clination to take it back, that I believe there 
 is no right, and ought to be no inclination 
 in the people of the free States, to enter into 
 the slave States and interfere with the ques- 
 tion of slavery at all." And he then added: 
 '■'■And wlien it is said that I am in favor of in- 
 terfering iciih slavery where it exists, I know it 
 is unwarranted by anything I have ever inten- 
 ded, and, as I believe, by anything I have ever 
 SAID. Jf, by any means, IJuive ever used lan- 
 guage ichicik could fairly be construed (as, 
 Jiowever, I believe I neve)' have,) I now correct 
 it:' 
 
 At Quiucy, Illinois, on the loth of Octo- 
 ber of 1858, he repeated the same sentiments, 
 and said that all he wished, "wi relation to 
 the institution of slavery,''' was to Jiave it 
 '■'■placed upon the basis that our fathers placed 
 it upon:' These views he subsequently, in 
 September 1859, uttered at Columbus, Ohio, 
 and ill Cincinnati. In the latter place he 
 said, "I assure you that I never had any 
 purpose, in any way, of interfering with the 
 
 institution of slavery where it exists." * * 
 » * * * * II J tiiink slaveiy is wrong 
 morally and politically. I desire that it 
 should be no turther spread in these United 
 States, and I should not object if it should 
 gradually terminate in the whole Union." 
 ******* And, addressing liis 
 '.'Democratic slaveholding Kentucky hear- 
 ers," he used this language — viz.: * * * 
 * * * * u J ^-^Yi tell you, so far as I am 
 authorized to speak for the opposition, what 
 we mean to do with you. We mean to treat 
 you, as near as we possibly can, as Washing- 
 ton, Jefferson, and Madison treated 3'ou. We 
 mean to leave you alone, and in no way to 
 interfere Avith your fnstitution ; to abide by 
 all and every compromise of tlte Constitu- 
 tion,'' §T. * * *******■:!• 
 
 And then, turning to his political friends, 
 he spoke thus: " I say that we must not in- 
 terfere with the institution of slaveiy in the 
 States where it exists, because the Constitu- 
 tion forbids it, &c. 
 
 "We must not withhold an eflicient fugi- 
 tive slave law, because the Constitution re- 
 quires us, as I understand it, not to withhold 
 such a law. But w*e must i)revent the out- 
 spreading of the institution, because neither 
 the Constitution nor the general welfare re- 
 quires us to extend it. We must prevent the 
 revival of the African slave trade, and the en- 
 acting by Congress of a Territorial Slave 
 Code. We must prevent each of these things 
 being done by either Congress or courts. 
 The people of these United States are the right- 
 ful masters of both Congress and courts, not 
 to overthrow the Constitution, but to ovei'throtc 
 the men icho p)ervert the Constitution:'' 
 
 Now, why was it that you maintained a pro- 
 found silence with regard to all these utter- 
 ances ? The answer is obvious. They were 
 mild, qonservative, conciliatory, containing, 
 in the words of Mr. Lincoln, as found in hjs 
 message at the extra session of Congress in 
 July, 1861, "repeated pledge against any 
 disturbance to any of the people or anj' of 
 their rights." It did not, therefore, com- 
 port with your object, to allude to them. 
 You had determiued to maintain that he and 
 the Republican party were resjjonsible for the 
 agitation of the country, and to justify South 
 Carolina, Georgia, and their compeers in 
 their conspiracy, sedition, and treason. To 
 do so, it was necessary for you to indulge in 
 the su^gesiio falsi, and also in the suppressio 
 Tcri. You found no difficulty in doing both. 
 It was done too, not spasmodically, or inci- 
 dentally, but with the pen of tranipiil thought, 
 and the voice of studied malignity. Yours, 
 therefore, was the "deep damning guilt" ol' 
 deliberate wrong.* 
 
 *It is not difllcult to conjecture what yonr reply to aU 
 this ■will be. You will exclaim with an air of triumph, 
 "Is not Mr. Liacoln and lii« party in favor of coercion ; 
 
Having thus basely concealed and perver- 
 ted the views of the "President elect," and 
 the original aims of "vast masses of the 
 Northern people, "you proceeded to state that 
 "the South seems inclined to accept the 
 judgment." "Everywhere in the South the 
 people are begining to look out for the means 
 of self-defence. Could it be expected that 
 they would be indifferent to such events as 
 have occurred ? That they would be idle and 
 see measures concerted and carried forward 
 for the annihilation sooner or later of her 
 property in slaves ? Such expectations, if 
 indulged, are not reasonable. The law of self- 
 defence includes the right oi' property as well 
 as of person ; and it appears to me that there 
 must be a time in the pi'or/ress of this conflict, 
 if it be indeed irrepressible,* when slavehol- 
 ders may lawfully fall back on their natural 
 rights, and emjyloy, in defence of their slave 
 property wlmtever means of protection tliey 
 possess or can command.'''' 
 
 I cannot dwell on all the points of this 
 extract. "What, sir, do you maintain in it V 
 That the people of the South, as rational be- 
 ings, could not be "idle," or, in other words, 
 inactive or dilatory, as to their "means of 
 self-defence," etc., preparation for their 
 enormous rebellion. That the seizure of our 
 custom houses, arsenals, garrisons, and forts 
 under the administration of the docile and 
 peaceful "traitor of Wheatland" was right? 
 That tlie transportation of arms and ammuni- 
 tion to tlie South, the scattering of our troops 
 by Floyd, and his attempts to remove the 
 guns of the arsenal at Pittsburg -syere right ! 
 That the dispersion of our vessels of war, 
 and of our seamen by Toucey, was right ! 
 
 of the subjugation of those in rebellion against the 
 Government ; of the Emancipation Proplaination ; of 
 arming the negroes? " etc. It is true that Mr. Liucoln 
 approves of all these things. So does the Kcpublicau 
 party. So do large numbers of pure and noble Demo- 
 crats. With united hearts and voices they declare, in 
 direct antagonism to your views and wishes, that "The 
 Union must be preserved ; the rebellion must be put 
 down, and that, in the accomplishment of the.se ends, 
 all the means should be employed which the civiliza- 
 tion of the age or the laws of modern warfare will per- 
 mit." But this has nothing whatever to do with your 
 misrepresentations of Mr. Lincoln and his friend in In- 
 dependence s<inare, I'hiladelphia, in December, 1800. 
 It in no way ullects or modifies the sentiments which 
 he then held, and which you garbled and pcvverted. 
 It was his peace policy which you were considering. 
 His war policy, incipient or ultimate, was not then an- 
 nounced, or tlio subject of consideration. In fact, he 
 then had none; for war, although threatened, had not 
 been inaugurated. To-day, however, he has a war 
 policy, which you do, which you may assail, but 
 whicli you cannot impair or overthrow. Tlie best nien 
 of the nation sanction it ; the worst men of the nation 
 oppose it. 
 
 The fallacy and weakness of your opposition may in 
 due time be shown. In the meantime you must remain 
 a "convicted libeller,"' and exposed calumniator. 
 
 *you will observe that I attach no importance to 
 the words, "If it be indeed irrepressible."' It is true 
 they arc "conditional words, but they are not con- 
 troling words. They do not modify or niter the propo- 
 
 That the resignation of general and field 
 and line officers was right ! That the plun- 
 der of our treasury was right ! That 'the 
 violation of the most solemn oaths of fealty 
 to the National Government, by Davis and 
 Breckinridge, and their associates was right! 
 In short, that all of the nefarious acts of the 
 "vilest traitors that ever cursed God'searth" 
 were right ! They could not be "indifferent." 
 They could not be ' ' idle. ' ' As intelligent crea- 
 tures they were required to act as they did. 
 
 But, sir, upon what did you rest this infa- 
 mous defence, this monstrous plea ? Upon 
 two allegations. First, that the slave pro- 
 perty of the South was endangered, and 
 would sooner or later be annihilated by Re- 
 publican vandalism. But not a word, not 
 an act of that party did you, or could you 
 produce to support your position. It was 
 wholly "a fancy sketch. " It was without 
 even the applausibility of a dignified conjec- 
 ture. Let Barnwell Rhett, of South Caro- 
 lina, Hon. A. H. Stephens, Vice President 
 of "the Southern Confederacy," and its 
 Commissioners to Great Britain, determine 
 this point. In the South Carolina State 
 Convention, in the latter part of 18G0 in dis- 
 cussing her " Declaration of Grievance," Mr. 
 Rhett said : " The secession of South Caro- 
 lina is not an event of a day. It is not any- 
 ihiny produced by Mr. Lincohi's election, or 
 by tlie non-execution of the fugitive-slave law. 
 It has been a matter which has been gather- 
 ing head for thirty years." lAnnual Cyclo- 
 padia, 18G1, p. 122.] This is brief, but de- 
 u^oustrative. Mr. Stephens, in his speech in 
 t*e Georgia State Convention, in November, 
 18G0, spoke thus : 
 
 fiition that in defence of her slave property, the South 
 has the right to dismember or destroy the Federal 
 Government. Correctly considered, this is an abstract 
 proposition, resting ultimately on an assumed defensive 
 right of property," and not on any incidental occur- 
 rence, adventitious circumstances, or extraneous phys- 
 ical facts or moral truths. 
 
 Moreover, thenileofcrlticismjs this : "In ascertain- 
 ing the opinion of a speaker or writer, consider all 
 I which he says on the same siibject, whetlier in the 
 I same connection or otherwise." Doing this there can 
 be no doubt as to your views. For in the progress of 
 your speech you referred to tho "several States propo- 
 I sing to "retire from the Confederacy." "South Carolina 
 going out peaceably." These expressions clearly imply 
 that in your judgment the right to retire, to go out 
 jieaceably existed. 
 
 But if this were otherwise, if the utmost force, "the 
 widest sweep" be given to the words, "If it indeed be 
 irrepressible," they would only make your proposition 
 this: unless the irrepressible conflict; (i. e-.) all op- 
 pnsition, mental as well as moral to the designs and 
 principles of the Southern slaveholders be suppressed 
 in thfe North, they have a right to overthrow the Na- 
 tional Government, or withdraw from it. In this form 
 it carries with it the entire theory of disruption and 
 Secession; and moreover, as will be fully shown in my 
 next letter, requires the Nationalization of Slavery, and 
 the suppression in the North of the liberty of the press 
 and speech. 
 
 This is indeed perhaps the mo.st objectionable, the 
 most monstrous form of your proposition. 
 
" Pause, I entreat you, and consuler for a ' 
 moment what reasons you can <;ive that will 
 even satisfy yourselves in calmer moments. 
 What reasons can you give to your fellow- 
 citizens in the calamity that it will bring 
 upon us ? What reasons can you give U) the , 
 nations of the earth to justify it — (seces- 
 sion '?) They will be tlie calm and dclibor- 
 ate judges in the case. And to what cause, ! 
 or one overt act, can you name or point on 
 which to rest the plea of justification V What 
 right has the North assailed ? What inter- 
 est of the South has been invaded ? What 
 justice has been denied ? And what claim, 
 founded in justice and right, has been with- 
 held V Can either of you to-day name one 
 governmental act of wrong deliberately and 
 purposely done by the Government of Wash- 
 ington of which the South has a right to 
 complain? I challenge the answer." | 
 
 Still more direct, and, if possible, still more i 
 cogent, is the letter of the Commissioners to 
 the British Government, dated 14th August, 
 1851. In it they say: 
 
 '■'■ It was from no fear that the slaves %oould 
 be liberated that secession took place. The very 
 party in power has proposed to guarantee 
 slavery forever in the States, if the South 
 would but remain in the Union. Mr. Lin- 
 coln's Message proposes no freedmn to the 
 slave, but announces subjection of his owner 
 to ftie Union — in other words, to the will of 
 the North. Even after the battle of Bull 
 Run, both branches of the Congress at Wash- 
 ing^on passed resolutions that the war is only 
 waged in order to uphold that (pro-slavery) 
 Constitution and to enforce the laws, (many 
 of them pro-slavery,) and out of 172 votes 
 in the lower House, they received all but 
 two, and in the Senate all but one. 
 "WM. L. YANCEY, 
 "P. S. ROUST, 
 "A. DUDLEY MANN, 
 
 "Southern Commissioners to Europe." 
 — (Appleton's Encyclopjedia, etc.) 
 
 How conclusive is this ! Superior to you 
 in candor and truthfulness, these representa- 
 tive men "of the South" utterly sweep 
 away the first allegation or ground of your 
 defence of the rebellion. It is ever thus that 
 
 "No falsehood can endure 
 
 Touch of truth, but returns 
 Offeree to its owu likeness." 
 
 But as to your next ground. It was made 
 up of two parts. 1st. You contend that in 
 defence of their " slave property," the South 
 had a right "to fall back on the law of na- 
 ture. That is, to disintegrate, to dissolve the 
 National Government. It was not simply 
 an act of secession which you justified. It 
 was more ; it was revolution ; it was des- 
 truction. You went even beyond the doc- 
 trine of Calhoun. In his letter to Hon. Wm. 
 Smith, ("Extra Billy,") of Virginia, he 
 
 says: "The right of revolution can be re- 
 sorted to rightfully only where govern- 
 ment \\a.v, failed in the great object for which 
 it was' ordained — the security and happiness 
 of the people ; and tlwn only wJten no other 
 remedy can be applied.'''' — (Clugkcy's Politi- 
 cal Text Book, p. 720.) 
 
 These conditions, important and control- 
 ling, as they were in the opinion of "the 
 grc-iit nullificr," you omitted, or more prop- 
 erly, rejected. And imitating the most reck- 
 less of "the fire-eaters," you "stepped out" 
 on the platform of "an absolute dcstruction- 
 ist." It is not, however, the first instance 
 of others than "fools" rushing in where 
 " their masters feared to tread." For prior 
 to IHllO few of even the most trucident and 
 radical of your faction sustained your theory. 
 Even the artful and ignoble Pierce, in his 
 annual message of January, 1856, in the 
 most direct terms condemns it. He says: 
 " Our system affords no justification of revo- 
 lutionary acts ; for the constitutional means 
 of relieving the people of unjust administra- 
 tion and laws, by a change of public agents 
 and repeal, are ample and more prompt and 
 effective than illegal violence," etc. 
 
 But while your "silly notion" has been 
 condemned by Pierce, it has called forth the 
 most decided disapproval of America's best 
 ami purest statesmen. Douglas has de- 
 nounced it. Clay has denounced it, Jackson 
 has denounced it. The former, on the 1st of 
 May, 1801, in the "great Wigwam" in 
 Chicago, when on his way to his home, to 
 close liis eyes forever on the scenes of earth, 
 cried out to the vast multitude who eagerly 
 listened to his last public address, " We can- 
 not recognize Secession. Recognize it once, 
 and you have not only dissolved Govern- 
 ment, but you have destroj'ed social order, 
 and upturned the foundations of society. 
 You have inaugurated anarchy in its worst 
 form, and will .shortly experience all the hor- 
 rors of the French revolution. Then we have 
 a solemn duty — to maintain the Government. 
 The greater our unanimity, the speedier the 
 day of peace. We have prejudices to over- 
 come from the few short months since of a 
 fierce party contest. Yet these must be al- 
 layed. Let us lay aside all criminations and 
 recriminations as to the origin of these diffi- 
 culties. WJien we shall have a country again 
 'with the United States flag floating over it, and 
 respected on every inch of American soil, it trill 
 tlien be time enough to ask who and what 
 brought all this njion «s." — (Rebellion 
 Record, Vol. I, p. 299.) 
 
 Clay, in his great speech on the Compro- 
 mise resolutions, in February, 1850, thus 
 spoke: "And, sir, I must take occasion 
 here to say that, in my opinion, there is no 
 right on the part of any one or more of the 
 States to secede from the Union. War and 
 
8 
 
 dissolution of the Union are identical and 
 inevitable, in my opinion. There can be a 
 dissolution of the Union only by consent or 
 by "war. Consent, no one can anticipate 
 from any existing state of things, is likely to 
 be given, and war is the only alternative by 
 which a dissolution could be accomplished. 
 * * * Sir, I have said that I thought 
 there was no right on the j)nrt of one or more 
 States to secede from the Union. I think so. 
 The Constitution of the United States was 
 made not merely for the generation that then 
 existed, but for posteritj' — unlimited, unde- 
 fined, endless, perpetual posterity.. And 
 ever}' State that then came into the Union, 
 and every State that has since come into the 
 Union, came into it binding itself, by indis- 
 soluble bands, to remain Avithin the Union 
 itself, and to remain within it hy its poster- 
 ity forever. Like another of tlie sacred con- 
 nections, in private life, it is a marriage 
 which no human authority can dissolve or 
 divorce the parties from." — (Colton's Last 
 Years of Henry Clay, pp. 343, 344.) 
 
 Jackson, in his message on the South Car- 
 olina proceedings in 1833, says: "The right 
 of the people of a single State to absolve 
 themselves at will, and without the consent 
 of the other States, from their most solemn 
 obligations, and hazard the liberties and 
 happiness of tlie millions composing this 
 Union, cannot be acknowledged. Such au- 
 thority is believed to be utterly repugnant 
 both to the principles upon which the Gen- 
 eral Government is constituted and to the 
 objects which it is expressly formed to attain. " 
 
 To these "masterly opinions" might be 
 added those of Madison, Benton, Webster, 
 and others no less illustrious. But this is 
 unnecessary. It is sufficiently shown that, 
 while the second ground of -your vindication 
 of the rebellion "appears" clear to you, it 
 has been refuted and denounced by the 
 purest and best statesmen of America. Do 
 not misunderstand me. I do not expect you 
 to be in the least influenced by the views of 
 men who belonged to the " higher regions 
 of politics." But others may be — others 
 will be. And with the result I will be fully 
 satisfied. But you did not stop with simply 
 maintaining the right of secession, or of rev- 
 olution on the part of " the slaveholders in" 
 defence of '^ their slave property." You 
 dared to go further. You afiirmed that this 
 alleged "right" might be vindicated or sup- 
 ported, not merely according to the laws of 
 war — the established rules of civilization — 
 but by "whatever means they (the South) 
 ' possess or can command." 
 
 What, sir, could surpass this in atrocity ? 
 Let us look at it. You are a jurist. You 
 are, or should have been, well read in the 
 jus gentium — the law of nations. Of at least 
 its elementary principles jou cannot be pre- 
 sumed to have been ignorant. You knew 
 
 that it required parties engaged in either 
 foreign or domestic wars to "do as little 
 harm" as comported "with their real in- 
 terests." And yet discarding this well-estab- 
 lished rule — attempting to put back the bene- 
 ficent march of the centuries — you dragged 
 up "the violent maxims and practices of the 
 ancients and usages of the Gothic ages," and 
 proclaimed in the noon of the nineteenth 
 century, in the centre of civilization, that 
 the rebels of America, in the execution of 
 their nefarious designs, might properly em- 
 ploj' any means within their power ; or, in 
 malignity demand, treachery supply, frauds 
 secure, desires solicit, or exigencies require. 
 Thus sustained and emboldened, Avhat have 
 they not done ? They have revelled in false- 
 hoods and perjuries. Thousands of the no- 
 blest and purest of earth's heroes have they 
 maimed and slaughtered. Virtue, in its 
 purest forms, and innocence in its most lovely 
 garbs, have they insulted and jibed. Age, 
 with its feeble steps and dim eyes have they 
 crowded to their dungeons, aril loaded Avith 
 their fetters. 
 
 In fine, thej^ have acted as if " war was a 
 dissolution of all moral 'ties, and a license 
 for every kind of disorder and intemper- 
 ance." For all this, to no small extent, you 
 are responsible. If not wholly the result of 
 your teachings, it was entirely in harmony 
 with them. And, therefore, from every bat- 
 tlefield where the defenders of the " stars and 
 stripes" have fallen — from eveiy fireside 
 which has lieen agonized and desolated — 
 from the caves, and mountains, and gorges 
 of Tennessee, where oppressed loyalty has 
 fled, and suffered, and died — from the dun- 
 geons of Virginia — from the pale cheeks of 
 disease — from the gaunt forms of starvation 
 — from smoking towns — from sacked cities 
 — from blasted fields — from manhood in its 
 sternness and sacrifices — from woman's tears 
 and sobs, and from childhood's Avails and 
 infanc3''s plaintive moans, there come voices 
 of cursing and of censure upon your infa- 
 mous conduct and sentiments. 
 
 Nor can they be hushed. There is a poetic 
 justice in the world. There is an avenging 
 Nemesis on the earth. In the Avords of Car- 
 lyle, "the unjust thing has no friends in the 
 heavens, and a majority against it on the 
 earth," and that majority may be the aA'cng- 
 ing Deity AvhicliAvill meet you on the second 
 Tuesday of October, at the ballot-boxes- in 
 Pennsylvania, and hurl you to merrited ob- 
 scurity and the ' ' gnawing feast ' ' of disap- 
 pointed ambition. ; 
 
 It cannot be that the people of Pennsylva- 
 nia will elevate George W. WoodAvard, the 
 champion of Avrong, the vindicator of rebel- 
 lion, the sympathizer with the South, to the 
 Gubernatorial chair ! 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 WESTMORELAND. 
 
THE TRUE VIEWS OF 110^. il W. WOODWARD 
 
 ON SECESSIOK. ETC., STATED. HH CONSIDERS THE GENERAL GOVERN- 
 MENT TOO WEAK, AND DESIRES IT STRlCNGTIIENED. HE WISHES 
 THE CONSTITUTION AMENDED SO THAT IT SHALL SANC- 
 TION SLAVERY ; AND THE LIBEKTY OF THE PRESS 
 ^ AND SPEECH PUT DOWN IN THE NORTH. 
 
 HOTs. GEO. W. WOODWARD: 
 
 Sir: The ides of October approaiii. It is 
 important tluit I make good my promise to ! 
 •'come back" to your read speech, and ex- 
 amine more of its unpatriotic ntterances and 
 pvirposes. 
 
 In view of tlie time which has elapsed 
 since tlie publication of my previous letter, 
 it may be well to refer briefly to what was ■ 
 shown in it. 
 
 These })articalars were established, viz.: ' 
 Isl. That you marred the harmony and gran- ' 
 deur of the Great Union Demonstration of • 
 December 13th, I860, by presenting yourself ' 
 at it, in the garb and with the declamation 
 and platitudes of a mere partisan. 2d. That 
 designedly, and with mnlice prepeme^ you 
 misrepresented the views and objects of the 
 "President elect,'' and of the Repiiblican 
 party. 3d. That you maintained that 
 because of the discussion or agitation 
 in the North of the subject of Africo- ' 
 American Slavery, the States where it ex- 
 isted or their people, could not rationally 
 do otherwise llian proiwre 1o defend "the 
 institution," and to overthrow the Federal 
 Government. And 4tli. That you conten- j 
 ded in opposition to the wisest and purest of ; 
 oiu* statesmen, not only that the slaveholders 
 had an absolute or perfect rigid to effect this ' 
 overthroM- or disintegration, and that in at- ; 
 templing it, they might use without restraint, 
 whatever moans they jiosscssed or coidd ■ 
 control. 
 
 Now, sir, ii may well l»; ihCiuired, w'heth- | 
 er you did not In some importont mode, [ 
 (iualify this last and most attrocious, pro- 
 position V. Astotmding as it may be, the an- 
 swer must be in the negative. It is true, you j 
 declared that you did not agree with the ! 
 South, that the time had arrived when "the | 
 right which vou asserted and vindicated," '< 
 >honld be put into full :ind unlimited opera- ; 
 lion ; but this did not in any manner effect 
 " the right itself." It neither modified nor ; 
 retracted what you had assumed concerning , 
 it. E.xc( pi as regards the mere incident of 
 
 time it left it intact. And it has been coi- 
 rectly observed by one of Europe's ablest 
 writers on morals and metaphysics, "that he 
 who cleurs a dangerous and alarming theory 
 of all enrumlurances to action or harmony 
 with it, hut the mere contingency of days or 
 months, is justly responsibh- for its results 
 "however frightful or repulsive thev mav 
 be." 
 
 All tlir guilt, all the ignominy, all the con- 
 sequenct s of yow postulate of National 
 secessioi: or disruption must therefore adhere 
 to you. By no chicaney, by no contor- 
 tions, b\ no elTorts can j'ou evade them. 
 In vain will you vociferaK; with Lady Mae- 
 ))eth, "Out. dannied spot, out, I say." 
 
 Trusting that this fact will not soon be 
 forgotten, I hasten to notice the "remedy" 
 which \i)u offered for the llireatened disrup- 
 tion of ihe nation, or the plan which you 
 brought forward for the purpose of retaining 
 within " the Confeileracy," the several States 
 which ill harmony witli your views, you 
 mildly stated, " proposed to letire " from it. 
 
 And ^^•hat was j-our remedy or plan f 
 That which the organic law of the Nation 
 had provided V Far from it; " Punishment 
 of treason, and misprison of treason," you 
 did not invoke. In no manner did you even 
 allude to it.* Claiming to be "a strict con- 
 structionist," i)rominently connected with a 
 party which has been vociferous and vehe- 
 ment in its ])rofessions of respect and attach- 
 ment for "the letter" of Ihe Federal Con- 
 stitution ; you utterly disregarded the means 
 
 ':'rii<' I'liri lit ihf Kramers of the Coiistitutlou was ol>- 
 \imHly tll•^. All vlolont Htlunipts in overthrow thr 
 Goverui)iei)i 'it to withdraw from it, Nhould tic juhI iiinl 
 overt'ouie 1 !■ force, 1)y physical re-sistaiice, or itiiiterial 
 Hgeiicien. i)(>fects ctl.<coved in its operations sliould lie 
 remedied by peaceiible amendment.-! — throutrli tho wori;- 
 iiiifK.of the hoart and raiitd. Tbo idea thiu treason shouM • 
 I), 'r'spoiuli d to by " courtly etiqvieite," by propositions 
 of "ifontle compromine.' etc., was never eutertaiiu'd 
 for a inomont by Wii-^hingtoii. .letferson. Madifou and 
 ilieir aBsociates. It oriRiuated wii)> thiw age, and I.- 
 fostered exclusively by a faction which has degraded 
 and prostitited the venerated term, "Democracy."" 
 
10 
 
 which its framers had adopted to arrest all 
 violent attempts to destroy the Government. 
 Nor is this all. In direct violation of both 
 the words and spirit of that Constitution 
 and the corresponding enactment of 1789, 
 approved by Washington, you said, let South 
 Carolina, and of consequence, all the States 
 which might desire to follow her example, 
 " Go out of the Union peaceably if at all." 
 
 In your opinion, it was rigid for these 
 States to assail the Nation with unrestrained 
 violence, but wrong for her to employ phys- 
 ical force and material agencies to repel the 
 ferocious assault and to maintain unimpaired 
 " the unity which has made us one people." 
 
 Thus, rejecting "as 3^ou did, all "coersive 
 measures," what did you propose in lieu 
 thereof? Let the following citations from 
 your speech respond or determine. 
 
 "Under the amendatory c\?i\\?,& of the Con- 
 stitution, Congress is bound to call a general 
 convention, on the application of the Legis- 
 latures of two-thirds of the States. Our Le- 
 gislature will assemble next month. Let us 
 petition them to demand the Convention. 
 Good examples like bad ones, are conta- 
 gious. Perhaps one and another of the 
 Northern and Southern States may do the 
 like, imtil the requisite number have con- 
 curred, and then we will have a National 
 Convention to consider the evils and dan- 
 gers of the day, and to devise remedies which, 
 it may be hoped, shall prove as salutary as 
 those of 1787. Have I not a right to say 
 that a Government which was all-sufficient 
 for the country fifty years ago, is insufficient 
 to-day, when every upstart politician can 
 stir the people to mutiny against the domes- 
 tic institutions of our Southern brethren, 
 when the ribald jests of seditious editors 
 can sway Legislatures and popular votes. 
 
 The Constitution, which is strong enough 
 to govern such men, is too weak to restrain 
 us who have out-grown the grave and mo- 
 derate wisdom that excited no irrepressible 
 conflict between brethren, but taught them 
 to dwell in unity. I would make it strong 
 enough to restrain the madness of our day." 
 
 " We must arouse ourselves and reassert the 
 rights of the slaveholder, and add such guar- 
 antees to the Constitution as will protect his 
 property from the spoliation of religious 
 bigotry and persecution, or else we must 
 give up our Constitution and Union." 
 
 These are plain, they admit of no misun- 
 derstanding. They disclosed your "remedy" 
 to be the amendment or alteration of the 
 Federal Constitution, agreeable to the desires, 
 objects and demands of the Southern Slave- 
 holders. 
 
 This, in fact, you distinctly declared was 
 the "alternative" for "a dissolution of the 
 Union." Acting upon this fallacious as- 
 sumption you suggested two ' ' amendments. ' ' 
 
 These should be fully examined, for they 
 are not trivial, not insignificant, but impor- 
 tant and radical. 
 
 The first contemplated the suppression of 
 the discussion of Slaverj- in the free States ; 
 a positive restraint of what you styled "the 
 madness of our day," "the ribald jests of 
 editors," " scurrillous libels" of campaign 
 documents, and mutinous words of ujjstart 
 politicians," etc. 
 
 In this however there was nothing pro- 
 found. It had not even the attraction of 
 noveltry. 
 
 The "most ignoble of mankind," James 
 Buchanan, in November, 1850, in response 
 to an invitation to attend a meeting in Phil- 
 adelphia, said : "Agitation in the North on 
 the subject of Southern' Slavery, must be re- 
 buked and put down," 
 
 (Horton's Life of Buchanan, p. 377.) 
 This is precisely what in less terse and direct 
 terms you advocated. For only in the 
 "free States," in Maine, New Hampshire, 
 Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con- 
 necticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
 Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, 
 loAva, Minnesota, Kansas, Oregon, and Cal- 
 ifomia,didyou urge thatthe discussion should 
 cease. Above Mason and Dixon's line, you 
 were anxious to terminate all "agitation " of 
 of the subject of Slaveiy ; to seal, as re- 
 spects it, every lip with the stillness of death ; 
 and to palsy every pen — no matter how pro- 
 found the reasoning, or benevolent the utter- 
 ances, or polished and courteous the words 
 used might be. u:But below that line, you were 
 willing, eager, that "agitation" should pre- 
 vail, without any limitations of time, place, 
 or manner ; that the alleged benefits and ad- 
 vantages of the peculiar institution should 
 be freely debated, and be supported by "ri- 
 bald jests," by coarse and rancorous in- 
 vective, b}' perverted facts, by misquoted 
 history, by sophistical argumentation, by 
 the sciolism of a weak philosophy, by the 
 sanctities and unwarranted teachings of the 
 pulpit, bj' the prostituted eloquence of states- 
 men, by the ferocity of ruffianism and the 
 cruelties and brutalities of mobs. Because 
 none of these, rampant and prevalent as they 
 had been in the South, did you condemn. 
 
 Standing up, therefore, in " Independence 
 Square," in the month of I)ecember,|1860, you 
 proclaimed in studied phrases,' that "Arti- 
 cle 1st of the addition to the Constitution of 
 the United States of America should be 
 [ amended so as to allow Congress to abridge 
 I the freedom of speech and of the press, as 
 j regards the millions of the citizens of the 
 1 free States ; or to be more specific, so that 
 j it should read, ' Congress shall make no law 
 ' respecting an establishment of religion, or 
 prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
 i abridging the freedom of speech or the press,' 
 
11 
 
 except as regards the subject of involuntary 
 Slaverj', -which shall not in any mode, or 
 under any circumstances, be discussed in the 
 non-slaveholding States, under such penal- 
 ties as Congress may provide ; ' or the right 
 of tiie people to assemble and petition the 
 Government, for a redress of grievances,' on 
 all other but the said excepted subject of 
 Slavery." The penalties which you wished 
 annexed to this astounding amendment by 
 Congress for the purpose of its enforcement 
 you did not see lit to name. But inasmuch 
 as it is clearly established that none inferior 
 to personal violence, or exile, or imprison- 
 ment, or death,""" would satisfy the owners 
 of human chattels, it is to be lairly inferred 
 that at the opportune moment you would 
 lift up your lofty form aud utter "elocpient 
 tones" in advocacy of the.sc. And instead of 
 regarding them as "cruel," j'ou would'sus- 
 tain them as abstract rights of the South, in 
 relation to which they could not be expected 
 to be indifferent, and which it would be un- 
 just to withhold from them. Because what 
 Virgil long since sang continues true : 
 
 " Facilis descensus Averui ; 
 Sed revocare i,'radum, .supcra.sriue evadere auras 
 Hoc opus, hie labor est. 
 
 And yet, sir, in view of all this, notwith- 
 standing your bold and shameless advocacy 
 of the destruction of the inalienable right of 
 "liberty of thought, speech, and the press," 
 you and your party, the very Convention 
 which, on the 17th of June ult., nominated 
 you as a gindidate for Governor of Penn- 
 sylvania, had the almost unparalleled ef- 
 frontery, the unrivatled inconsistency to 
 "resolve and declare" about a "free press," 
 and against what it termed the great crime 
 of the arrest and deportation of Clement L. 
 Vallandigham, a num who boldly declared 
 his sympathy was with the South,! who de- 
 veloped the truthfulness of his declaration 
 by his persistent hostility in words and ac- 
 tions to the National Government, and con- 
 ccming whom ei id oinnc genua the gallant 
 Major General Burnside said : "They must 
 not use license, and plead that they are ex- 
 ercising libertj'." 
 
 * " Sbo. 12. If any free persou, by speaking or by 
 writing, assert or maintain that persons have not the 
 right to hold slaves in this territory, or shall introduce 
 into this tprritery, print, publish, write, circulate, or 
 cause to he introduced into this territory, written, 
 printed, published, or circulated in this territory, any 
 book, paper, mai^azine, pamphlet, or circular contain- 
 ing any denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in 
 this territory, such per.sou shall bo deemed guilty of 
 felony, aud punished by imprisonment at hard labor 
 for a" term of not less than two years." — (Statutes of 
 Kansas Territory, p. 717.) "Let an Abolitionist come 
 ■within the borders of South (Jaroliua, if wo can catch 
 him we will try him." — (Senator Hammond.) 
 
 tSee a pamphlet entitled "The Peace Democ- 
 racy uiini Copperheads. Their Record, ' etc. This 
 was prepared with great care, is in all respects liable, 
 and presents in a condensed forma mass of important 
 facts and information. 
 
 And here let it be particularly observed 
 that the distinction nuide by General Burn- 
 side constitutes the true ditference' between 
 you and the Administration. 
 
 It has only endeavored to arrest " an 
 abuse of a right — an intemperate, licentious, 
 seditious, and riotous disputation" of its 
 necessary policy and measures — a mode of 
 debate which is c<mdemned by Story, Kent, 
 and all tlie great luminaries oi' the American 
 as well as English law ; while you have 
 "struck" at the right it.self, aimed to sec- 
 tionalize it, aud to prevent "the men of the 
 North and the West " from examining and 
 considering the great subject of human lib- 
 erty, — one which has engaged the closest at- 
 tention, commanded the severest studies, 
 called forth the purest argumentation, pro- 
 duced the loftiest oratory, and exhibited to 
 the world the most sacred and invincible 
 heroism of the centuries. 
 
 But without adding more relative to your 
 first amendment, I will glance at your 
 " second." 
 
 It was in harmony with the first — an exact 
 and philosophical counterpart. 
 
 That was designed to be prohibitory of an 
 assumed wrong, this, protective of an as- 
 serted right. 
 
 Accordingly you insisted that Slavery 
 should receive direct constitutional sanction, 
 and be upheld by positive defensive provi- 
 sions. 
 
 Exactly what you conceived these should 
 be, you artfully refrained from specifically 
 indicating. Yet it is not difficult to deter- 
 mine what were your views in relation to 
 them, because you were prepared, to use 
 your own words, "to set the North right " 
 with regard to "the peculiar institution," 
 and to invest it with whatever protection 
 those immediately connected with it might 
 deem expedient or necessary. 
 
 Hence, in order to find out the particulars 
 which lay unuttered or quiescent, in your 
 generalization, it will only be necessary to 
 ascerfain what "guarantees" the South re- 
 quired ; and this "can be at once done by 
 producing a resolution otfcred by .left. Davis 
 on the 2i)th of December, 18C0, in the Senate 
 of the United States." 
 
 It was in these words, viz: '■'■ Rexolved, 
 That it shall be declared, by amendment of 
 the Constitution, thai property in slaves, re- 
 cognized as such by the local law of any of 
 the States of the Union, shall stand on the 
 same footing, in all constitutional and fede- 
 ral relations, as any other species of property, 
 .shall not be subject to be divested or im- 
 paired by the local law of any other State, 
 either in escape thereto, or of transit or so- 
 journ of the owner therein ; and in no case 
 "whatever shall such property be subject to 
 bo divested or impaired by any legislative 
 
12 
 
 act of the United States, or of any of the ter- 
 ritories thereof." — {Congressional Globe, 3d 
 Sess., 3Gth Cong., Part I, p. 190.) 
 
 Fairlj' Analyzed, what did tliis rosolntion 
 present as "the entire affirmative claim of 
 tlie South V" Manifestlj' these things : 
 
 1. That the Federal Govenmieut should 
 determine and maintain tliat mankind could 
 be the .subject of the most absolute owner- 
 ship ; or in the Avords of Blackstone, "of 
 that sole and despotic dominion m hich one 
 man claims and exercises over the external 
 things of the world in total ejfclusi<m of the 
 rights of any other individual in the imi- 
 verse." That in this respect it should pro- 
 claim that there is no differejice bel ween ne- 
 groes, mulattoes, quadroons, and brunettes, 
 and hogs, nudes, horses, and oxen I 
 
 2. That as a corollary of this national de- 
 termination, and for the purpose of render- 
 ing it effectual. Congress should be inhibited 
 from passing any enactments hostile to 
 "this ownership of slaves," and the Execu- 
 tive and Judicial Departments ol the Gene- 
 ral Government should be required to sup- 
 port all elaijns and desires based on sucli 
 ownership. 
 
 3. That all legislation, and whenever re- 
 ((uisite all judicial decisions of the Northern, 
 Middle, and "Western States, should be in 
 harmony with this "property theory," and 
 that as a consecpience slaveholders should be 
 allowed not only "the right of transit," 
 with their slaves, through these States, but 
 also that of "sojourn" udlihilum. or with- 
 out any limitation as to time and manner. 
 
 ■L That tlie territories of the Uniied States 
 should be oj)en to the indefinite extension of 
 slavery, and that hence no action or legisla- 
 tion hostile to it, should be allowMl on the 
 part (jf the inhabitants thereof; but that on 
 the contrary it slioidd iu all respects "bo 
 held and defended as otlier property." 
 
 Such, then, were the "amendmi.'nls" de- 
 ^ manded by .Tetf. Davis a?- the representative 
 of the South, and such were the "guaran- 
 tees" which you insisted must be ''added" 
 It) the Constituticm. 
 
 Additions more fundamental, ehaugcsmorc 
 infamous and mnrc directly in aitagouifni 
 with the views nf " the founders (f the .lie- 
 public" conld not well have been Mtggcsted. 
 
 Madison, sir, "thought it wron^' to admit 
 in the Consstitutiou the idea that tliere could 
 l>e property in man." 
 
 You, on the eontrarj' considered it wron:^ 
 tliat this "idea" in its fnllesi (wtciit, should 
 be witidieid from it. 
 
 .^ You insisted that "the peenliHr institit- 
 .^.Jjions," with all of its imperious claims, its 
 ..(uonstrous assumptions, its atlrocious pre- 
 tentions, and barherous imnciple> customs 
 .ind practices, should be "proni)>tly" en- 
 shrined, as an idolized and supreme d<'ih-, 
 in the temple of our liberties. 
 
 And to accomplish this nefarious and odi- 
 ous pm-pose, it appears you were willing and 
 prepared to increase the power of the Gene- 
 ral Government "to strengthen it, explicitely 
 affirming, that while it "was all sufficient 
 for the country fifty years ago, "'it is insuf- 
 ficient to-da3'." 
 
 I .But I must not dwell longer on the nature 
 
 I and efi'ects of j^oiu" proposed alterations or 
 
 ' " amendments." In these respects they have 
 
 I been sufficiently exposed. 
 
 ' There is, however, an aspect in which they 
 should be further considered ; or rather 
 
 \ glanced at. It is this: The facts that you 
 
 ' suggested tliese amendments, that you advo- 
 cated them, and that in order to give them a 
 vigorous operation you urged that the func- 
 tions of the General Goveniment should be 
 increased, establish conclusively the arrant 
 
 ! hypocrasy of the jn'otestaticms made in your 
 speech " of devotion to the Union as it is,"* 
 the flagrant inconsistencj- of the cognate crj' 
 ofye^ur followers, "The Constitution as it 
 is, and the Union as it was," and the decep- 
 tiousness and basenass of their fervid decla- 
 mation in relation to "the centralization of 
 power in tlie hamls of the Federal Govern- 
 ment, its alleged absoiption of State rights, 
 
 I rights, etc. 
 
 The poet Dante, sir, feigns that upon the 
 
 : archway of pandemonium is inscribed, 
 " Leave hope behind." It would seem, sir, 
 that u])on the arc.-hway of your political sanc- 
 tum, and of that of the (»rganizirtion which 
 nominated and supports you is inscrfbed, 
 " Dro]) conscience, truth, and censistency at 
 
 * Upon concluding this letter, I have seen yours of 
 
 I the 21st jnst. to Rufus E. Sharply, Esq. The facts which 
 
 I have presPuted above, completely refute the asseriiou 
 
 I hat your life ha.!i been spent thus far iu upholding tho 
 
 the Conhlitutiou of the United States as our Father." 
 
 : framed it, the Union they formed, etc. In view of your 
 
 I explicit declaration that the Constitution, which ytas 
 
 strong enough for the fathers was too weak for us — of 
 
 your distinct advocacy of a convention to .amend the 
 
 Federal Constetution, and increase the powers of the 
 
 General Government, etc., this assertion is indeed ex- 
 
 i traordinary '. 
 
 It exhibits a degree of moral depravity — a reckless- 
 ness with regard to truth — which .sjoes far to establish 
 your unfitness for the position to which you aspire. A 
 new ajad cogeut p';.^" i is thus furnished "for your defeat 
 at tho ballot boxes il. October. 
 The as.serriou that, "so far from over avowing belief 
 ! ii\ Secession, or favoring recognition of the Southern 
 ' Confederacy, you are, and always have been, opposed 
 ] to both, and in favor of suppressing the rebellion by 
 I which botli are supported," has been fully answered Iu 
 j my previous letter. As will appear by reference to 
 i that letter, your st»itemeut is utterly false. 
 ' Bo not deluded. It is too late, sir, for you lo attempt 
 I to establish " a reputation for loyalty. " Prevarication, 
 however artful or deliberate, will be useless. It will 
 only augment your uliimate ignominy, and convince 
 the world afresh- (hat "it is a fearful thing to become 
 the defiant idolator of wrong ; because in due time thf 
 exaeiions of theeutlironed Deity will impel its worship- 
 per to the most odious crimes, and involve him iu inev- 
 itable yet merited punishment." Let me beseech you, 
 then, to be a man if you cannot be a Governor. It is 
 terrible to sacrifice all which is left of the one in order 
 to attain the other. Con.sideration of these truths will 
 be of no little protit to you. 
 
13 
 
 the eutrauco. " At least this lias been done. 
 What good, what honest man — what true, 
 what earnest patriot can support j'ou ? Ti uio, 
 in its onward march, will soon respond to 
 the inquiry. I trust, sir, it will be a response 
 which will leave you in the merited seclusion 
 of private life. Yours, &c., 
 
 WESTMORELAND. 
 Sept. 16, 18G3. 
 
 THB GROUNDS UPON WUICU lUS I'HliOKY OF SE- 
 CESSION RESTS EXAMINED. THE MISREPKE- 
 SENTATI0N3 OF THE NORTH AS RESl'ECTS ; 
 HER AHOLISHMENT OF SLAVERY, ETC., EX- 
 POSED. HIS ABUSE OF NORTHERN CLERGY- 
 MEN AND CHURCHES CORRECTED. . HIS 
 ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF SLAVERY RE- 
 PUTrib, AND HIS ADVOCACY OF WHITE 
 
 slavery established. 
 
 Hon. George W. Woodward. 
 Sir:— 
 
 Up to this date I have established two gen- 
 eral propositions. First, that you advocated 
 in your speech of December, ISUO, the right 
 of the South to dismember or destroy the 
 Federal Union — to separate herself from it, 
 and to form an independent Government ; 
 SDd| second, that you maintained that, in 
 order to suspend or restrain the full exercise 
 of this right, it was indispensable that the 
 National Constitution should be amended or 
 changed so that it would directly sanction 
 and uphold the institution of slavery, and 
 suppress all discussion respecting it in the 
 free States. 
 
 It was to be expected that jou would at 
 least have attempted to support positions so 
 radical — so infamous — as these, by a rare ac- 
 cumulation ot facts, and an unrivalled co- 
 gency of argumentation. But instead of these, 
 what did you present to jour hearers? Mis- 
 representations of the motives and acts of 
 the '' Fathers of the Republic," in the free 
 States in the abolition of slavery — visionary 
 speculations as to the value of cotton— tra- 
 duction of Northern churches and preachers, 
 and, finally, a puerile and sophistical defence 
 of slavery in the United btates, in which 
 you " came out " in favor of slavery without 
 regard to races or color. Each of these in 
 their order may be considered not in ertenso, 
 but succinctly as possible. 
 
 Let me proceed accordingly. 
 
 (1.) As to the tirst. That you should mis- 
 state the facts of history as regards the aboli- 
 tion of slavery in the free States, and vilify 
 the noble and pure men of the first age of 
 our Government, ia not surprising. This is, 
 
 indeed, one of the strongest proclivities — one 
 of the most confirmed habits of your "school 
 of politics." But you rashly ventured beyond 
 most of your associates when yon allowed 
 the following statement to glide from your 
 pen, and drop from your lips, viz : " The 
 Northern States abolished their slavery, and 
 so gratified their innate love of freedom ; but 
 they did it gradually, and so did not wound 
 their love o/ gain. They sold out alavery to 
 the Southland they received a full equivalent, 
 not only in the inicc paid down, but in the 
 manufacturing and commercial prosperity 
 which grew up from the productions of slave 
 labor." Considered in reference to either or 
 all of the States involved, this statement is 
 utterly devoid of truth. Its chief pariiculars 
 may be examined. 
 
 (a.) And as respects the allegation that 
 the North abolished slavery "from love of 
 gain, "Pennsylvania may he regarded as a 
 representative of the other States. Did she 
 "wipe out" slavery " from love of gain " — 
 prompted by the demands of avarice ? Was 
 this the motive that inspired and controlled 
 her noble, pure, and revered legislators of 
 
 irso? 
 
 Fortunately, like the " worthies"' of the 
 roll call of the pupil of Gamaliel, "though 
 dead they speak " in the preamble of the Act 
 of Ist of March of that year. 
 
 In it, after affirming gratitude to 
 God for deliverance from " that condition to 
 which the arms and tyranny of Great Britain 
 were exerted to reduce us," &c., they say: 
 " Impressed with these ideas, we conceive 
 that it is our duty — and we r' joice that it is 
 in our power — to extend a portion of that 
 freedom to others which hath been extended 
 to us, and release from that state of thraldom 
 to which we ourselves were tyrannically 
 doomed, and from which we have now every 
 prospect of being delivered. It is not for us 
 to inquire why, in the creation of mankind, 
 the inhabitants of the several parts of the 
 earth were distinguished* by a diflerence in 
 feature or complexion. It is sufficient to 
 know that all are the work of an Almighty 
 hand.^ V/e find," &c. * "•'' " We esteem 
 it a peculiar blessing granted to us that we 
 are enabled this day to add one more step to 
 universal civilization, by removing as much 
 as possible the sorrows of those who have 
 lived in undeserved bonda;.'-e, and from which, 
 by the assumed authority of the kings of 
 Great Britain, no effectual legal relief could 
 be obtained. Weaned by a lon^ course of 
 experience from those narrow prejuoicea and 
 partialities we had imbibed, we find our 
 hearts enlarged with kindness and benevo 
 lence toward men of all conditions and na- 
 
14 
 
 tioiis; and we conceive ourselves at this par- 
 ticular moment extraordinarily called upon, 
 by the blessings which we have received, to 
 manifest the sincerity of our profession, and 
 to give a substantial proof of our gratitude." 
 
 Sec. 2. " And whereas the condition of 
 those persons who have heretofore been de- 
 nominated negro and mulatto slaves has been 
 attended with circumstances which not only 
 deprived them of the common blessings that 
 they were by nature entitled to, but has cast 
 them into the deepest afflictions by an unnat- 
 ural separation and sale of husband and wife 
 from each other and from their children, an 
 injury, ihe greatness of which can only be 
 conceived by supposing that we were in the 
 same uohappy case. In justice, therefore, 
 to persons so unhappily circumstanced, and 
 who, haviug no prospect before them 'whereon 
 they may rest their sorrows and their hopes, 
 have no reasonable inducement to render 
 their services to society, which they otherwise 
 might, and also in grateful commemoration 
 of our own happy deliverance from that state 
 of UDConditional submission to which we 
 were doomed by the tyranny of Britain,'' — 
 Be it enacted, etc. — (1 Smith's Laws, 193.) 
 
 Now, in these words there is an utter ab- 
 sence of any evidence of the sordid motive 
 which you attributed to them. 
 
 Instead of being governed by the " master 
 passion" of gain, it appears that they were 
 controlled by the purest emotions and prin- 
 ciples of philanthrophy — " of kindness and 
 benevolence, of justice and duty." " High," 
 then, and " lifted up '" above your low and 
 vile concepiions and aspersions, were the men 
 of 1780; and who can doubt that if to-day 
 their rayletis eyes could flash and their wasted 
 tongues articulate, they would flash upon you 
 the withering gaze of scorn, and articulate 
 " into your ears " the tones of deep and burn- 
 ing indigDatioii. 
 
 J^evere, indeed, should be the execration 
 that should fall upon you because of your de- 
 liberate misrepresentation of their motives! 
 
 (b.) But as regards the next particular ; 
 the asseveration that the North received ' ' an 
 equivalent," a price in band " for her libera- 
 ted slaves." This was as false and base as 
 the other particular. Prepared as you were 
 to " traduce thef clime of your birth," you did 
 not, because you could not, name one of all 
 the Northern States which received a quid 
 pro quo, a price for her slaves. 
 
 As a complete refutation of this assertion, 
 I will quote from " The Preliminary Report 
 of the Eighth Census." On page 10 of that 
 report Mr. Kennedy, an appointee of a " De- 
 mocratic Administration," and, until after 
 the inauguration of the rebellion, a 
 
 correspondent of Jacob Thompson, a former 
 Secretary of the Interior, but at the date «f 
 the correspondence a prominent rebel, says: — 
 
 "It may not be out of place to state that 
 the American States, which in the past cen- 
 tury abolished slavery, permitted the free 
 colored population to enjoy every right con- 
 sistent with their condition as a class, and 
 allowed bond and free to remain during their 
 natural lives in the State or colony where 
 they lived. This fact, although sometimes 
 questioned, can be demonstrated beyond ca- 
 vil ;■ and the contrary can only be urged by 
 such as are uvfamiliar with the subject or 
 have an object in the misrepresentation. The 
 plan of gradual emancipation probably tended 
 to this result, as those who were living in 
 bondage continued to be slaves, while their 
 descendants were generally to become free at 
 such period as they were qualified to main- 
 tain their own existence by labor. "■ 
 
 " An examination of the relative number 
 at different successive periods, uatil slavery 
 became extinct, must lead to conclusions 
 that no material deportation of slaves occur- 
 red shortly before or after the passage of 
 emancipation acts — a fact which cannot be 
 controverted ; and while it must be conceded 
 that the Northern people prosecuted the slave 
 trade at an early period with energy and 
 thrift, they are entitled to the award of sin- 
 cerity and honesty in giving the earliest ex- 
 amples of the abolition of the institution of 
 slavery within their own borders." 
 
 This is clear. It convicts you of an egre- 
 gious and malignant falsehood. "The slaves 
 of the North were not handed ever to the 
 South." Disseminated by ' ignorance on 
 stilts," this falsehood would have been par- 
 donable. But coming from your lips — a 
 judge, a grave and imperious expounder of 
 civil laws — a bold and restless aspirant for 
 the occupancy of the Executive Chamber at 
 Harrisburg, it admits of no excuse or pallia- 
 tion. None can be conceived — noi^e sug- 
 gested. 
 
 (2.) But leaving this point, I must next 
 refer to your statements as to the value and 
 importance of cotton. 
 
 There will be found to yield as little sup- 
 port to your propositions as your prevarica- 
 tions concerning the motives and conduct of 
 the Northern States in " doing away with 
 slavery." 
 
 The most material parts of them will be 
 found in this extract : " Cotton, the product 
 of slave labor, has been one of the indispen- 
 sable elements of all this our prosperity. More 
 it must be an indispensable element of all 
 our fiitur» prosperity. I say it must be. The 
 world cannot and will not live without cot- 
 
15 
 
 ton. There is not a matron in all the Union I 
 that can clothe her family or herself without 1 
 it. Nor can England do without our cotton ;" 
 her mills and ours would rot ; her operatives 
 and our operatives would starve if the negroes 
 did not raise cotton. 
 
 This is "a glowing picture," in fact, po- 
 etical ; but at the same time wild and morbid 
 exaggeration. 
 
 Cotton is valuable. In connection with the 
 saw — gin — the invention of Mr. Whitney, a 
 native of " the land of brains " — Massachu- 
 setts — it is a product of great importance. 
 
 But it is not an " indispensable element" 
 of National prosperity. 
 
 It is far less so than the grains of the 
 West and the coals and iron of the Keystone 
 State. The brightest and most sublime pages 
 of history contain no tracery of cotton. 
 
 The reformation uuder Luther, Melantchon, 
 Zwingle, Calvin, "the revival of learning" 
 the establishment of the true doctrines of the 
 rights of'men, all occurred prior to the era 
 of cotton. 
 
 The Barons at Runneymede, in their eon- 
 test with King John for the privileges of 
 Magna Cfaarta, derived no inspiration from it. 
 
 Our imperishable Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence was in no respect created by it ; nor 
 is the perpetuity of its great truths in 
 any degree dependent upon it. 
 
 The deeds of valor performed by our Rev- 
 olutionary Fathers' their pure morals and 
 exalted principles, all proceeded the cultiva- 
 tion of cotton in the country. It was but lit- 
 tle known to them except as a garden plant 
 until their heroic struggle had terminated. 
 The mothers of that period clothed themselves 
 without even the " Jenny of Hargrave or the 
 drawing roller and revolving spindle of A.rk- 
 wright ;" and if " any matron " of the Union 
 could not now do so, it is beoause, like you, 
 she is a degenerate descendant of a " noble 
 ancestry." 
 
 But they do not thus resemble you. They 
 can be clad, if necessary, without cotton — 
 and be the mothers of heroes, the trainers of 
 saints, and the educators of minds — and live 
 and act in all the purity, dignity, atid power 
 of their sex, if the " mildew of God's wrath " 
 should rest on all the cotton-fields of the Con- 
 federacy. And if touched by the Goddess of 
 Liberty, the chains of every slave should fall 
 ofif, and they should joyously inhale the at- 
 mosphere of freedom, or if every negro in all 
 the South should ultimately " lay down the 
 shovel and the hoe," our mills " need not, would 
 not rot" — our operatives would not starve. 
 England would not disappear from the map 
 of the earth. For it has long since been 
 demonstrated iheXfree or paid labor is supe- 
 
 rior to coerced and unrewarded toil ; and not 
 a few intellects superior to yours believe that 
 white labor is superior to colored labor ; and 
 if so, cotton will continue to be a product of 
 commerce and of manufacture, and of use, if 
 Anglo-Saxons alone existed to cultivate it. 
 But if not — as the world lived long without 
 it, evolved its heroic and golden ages with- 
 out it — it could, and, if requisite, wsuld do so 
 hereafter. 
 
 Sir, it is a monstrous error, a huge blunder 
 to affirm that cotton is an ^^indispensable 
 element of our prosperity," and that the very 
 existence of a large number of proud, culti- 
 vated, industrious Caucassians of America is 
 dependent upon the bone and sinew of 
 Africa's despised sable " sons and daugh- 
 ters !" 
 
 ^'Cotton is not King.-'' " The earth is the 
 Lord's and the fulness thereof: " Despite 
 the teachings of a material philosophy, and 
 the sceptical and flimsy utterances of base 
 partisaus, ' God is King,' and He exercises 
 his supremacy through the power of truth, 
 right, and justice, and therefore these must 
 and will prevail." 
 
 But I must not enlarge here. It has been 
 well said " that evil always assails good," 
 and that " black wounding calumny loves a 
 shluing mark ;" and hence, after failing to 
 sustain your dogmas and schemes by the 
 perversion of historical facts and vapid de- 
 clamatioa relative to cotton, you icdulged in 
 unrestrained denunciation of '* preachers and 
 churches." 
 
 This you did by an inquiry, and by a broad 
 affirmation. The inquiry was in these words, 
 " What does that editor, or preacher know of 
 the Union, and of the men who made it, who 
 habitually reviles and misrepresents the 
 Southern people, and excites the ignorant 
 and the thoughtless in our midst to hate 
 and persecute them." The affirmation was 
 this : " according to some ecclesiastical coun- 
 cils, it would seem that the great duty of the 
 American Qltristian is to war with his neigh- 
 bor's propertj/; and, if opportunity presents, 
 to help steal and hide it" 
 
 These, you may have regarded as poten- 
 tial and pungent, •' sturdy blows in support 
 of your base work." But neither of them rise 
 above low and common ribaldry. Of the 
 thousands of preachers in the North, you did 
 uotpoini out one who was guilty of "bear- 
 ing false witaess against the Southern peo- 
 ple," or of inflaming the ignorant and incon- 
 siderate with emotions of rancour against 
 them, or of stirring them up to " persecute 
 them." 
 
 Nor did you designate any " ecclesiastical 
 council " which had directly or indirectly, 
 
16 
 
 taught that its adherents should assail their 
 neighbor's proprety, or violate the injunction 
 of " the great head of the church/'" "TJiori 
 shall not steal.'' 
 
 I go further. I afnrni that you did not 
 possess the information requisite to enable 
 you to do so — that you are not in possession 
 of it now, and that you never will bd ! 
 
 Harmless then — powerless as the tnutler- 
 ings of delirium, is your unsupported detrac- 
 tion of a class of men *' who have been re- 
 cognized by even our most eminent jurists, 
 as among the most valuable members wf civil 
 society, not cnly in consequence of the purity 
 of their lives, but also because of the salu- 
 tary effects of their exalted, holy teachings." 
 
 And with a peculiar propriety they can re- 
 pel four fabrications by these expressive 
 words : 
 
 "If waara 
 Traduced by ignorant tongues— which neither kaow 
 Our faculties nor person, yet will be 
 Toe chronicles of our duLag— let us say, 
 'Tis but the fate of place, and the rough brake 
 That virtue must go throaph." 
 
 1 come at length to your final effort to sus- 
 tain your infamous assumptions. 
 
 In this you passed from material to moral 
 considerations, and after no small amount of 
 evasion, and evolutions, you presented -^n 
 argument consisting of two parts in defence 
 of " the peculiar institution," or of slavery 
 in the United States. 
 
 The first part was within the class of rea- 
 soning deaomiuated "negative," the second 
 was positive or direct. 
 
 In the former you contended that "the 
 negro slavery of America was not sinful, be- 
 cause no lex scripta,'^ plainly written, could 
 he produced against it. 
 
 How supremely ridiculous is this ! Let m$ 
 call your attention to a few relevant facts 
 with which if, you are not, you should be 
 familiar. America is not naaied in the Old 
 or New Testament. It was not discovered 
 until about fifteen centuries aftf;r these books 
 were closed, and not until about two cen- 
 turies subsequent to the discovery was slavery 
 introduced into the Western Continent. 
 
 And yet you ask for a direct, explicit con- 
 demnation of it in the Bible ! For an express 
 and positive law against an institution, or a 
 specific status of society which had no ex- 
 istence when the Bible was written. 
 
 Truly, sir, 
 Paitiriunt monies, mascictur ridimlus'mvK. 
 
 But your demand, absurd as it was, shall 
 not be entirely useless. Aside from the fact, 
 that it evinnced how imperfectly you under 
 stood "God's mode of communicating his 
 will to man," or " the plan of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures," it affords a proper occasion to impr.rt 
 
 to you correct information, or to enlighten 
 your igoorance on this important subject 
 And this can be best and most authoritatively 
 done by quoting the words of eminent divi- 
 nes and moralists. Conspicuous among them 
 is the distinguished Archbishop Whately, who 
 says in his Essays, vol. 2, p. 263, London, 
 1833 : " It was no part of the scheme of the 
 Gospel Revelation to lay down any thing ap- 
 proaching to a complete system of moral 
 precepts, to enumerate everything that is en- 
 joined or forbidden by our religion, nor again 
 to give a detailed general description of 
 Christian duty, or to delineate, after the man- 
 ner of systematic ethical writers, each separate 
 hahlt of virtue or vice. New and higher 
 motives were implanted, a more exalted and 
 perfect example was proposed for invitation, 
 a loftier standard of morality was established 
 and the Christian is left to apply for himself 
 in each case, the principles of the Gospel." 
 
 Perfectly in harmony with this are the 
 views of the scarcely less distinguished 
 Francis Wayland. He says : 
 
 '• I think it must appear obvious to every 
 reflecting mind, that this is the only method 
 in which a universal revelation, which should 
 possess any moral stringency, could have 
 given, for all coming time." * * * 
 
 A simple precept, or prohibition, is of all 
 thing the easiest to be evaded. Lord Eldon 
 used to say, " that no man in England could 
 construct an act of Parliament through which 
 he could not drive a coach and four." Be- 
 sides, suppose the New Testament had been 
 intended to give us a system of precepts, 
 theca were but two courses which could have 
 been adopted. The first would have been to 
 forbid merely every wrong practice of that 
 particular time ; the second to go forward 
 into futurity and forbid every wrong practice 
 that could ever afterwards arise. If the first 
 mode had been adopted, every wrong practice 
 that might in after ages arise would have 
 been unprovided for, and of course unforbid- 
 den. It the second had been adopted, the 
 New Testament would have formed a library 
 in itself more volumnious than the laws of the 
 realm of Great Britain. Both of these 
 courses would have been manifestly absurd. 
 
 The only remaining scheme that could be 
 devised, is to present the ffreat principles of 
 moral duty, to reveal the great moral facts on 
 which all ducy must rest, the unchangeable 
 relations in which moral creatures stand to 
 each other and to God, and without any pre- 
 cept in each particular case, to Jeaye the 
 course of conduct to be determined by the 
 conscience of every individual acting in the 
 presence of the All-seeing Deity. 
 
17 
 
 (Letter to Rev. Richard Fuller, pp. 9G — 
 97.) 
 
 Now it has beeu chieMy by the application 
 of these " great principles,"* etc., that those 
 whom you denominate Abolitionists — the op- 
 ponents of Southern slavery, have;maintained 
 that it wns specijicalhj condemned. 
 
 And in this, notwithstanding your asser- 
 tions to the contrary, they have been sustained 
 by the great body of "divines really wise and 
 good in our midst,"' as well as the most ac- 
 credited commentators. 
 
 Not to go beyond the limits of Pennsylva- 
 nia, nor far from the spot where your speech 
 was read it will be sufficient to mention 
 Barnes, Newton, Brooks, Moore, Boardman, 
 Adams, Cooper, Eddy, Hatton, Morris, 
 Coombs, and Bishop Potter. 
 
 The former of these has published " An 
 Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery." 
 8 mo. pp. 384. Perry & McMillan, Philadel- 
 phia, in which the entire system of slavery is 
 shown to be in conflict with the letter, spirit, 
 and principles of " God's word ;"' and with 
 him, as appears from various sermons and 
 essays, all the others agree. If you had re- 
 futed the published views of these eminent 
 divines and scholars, there would have been 
 some propriety in your calling for proof of 
 the sinfulness of slavery ; but when this had 
 not been done, nor even fairly attempted, 
 your demand was only the " trick of the dis- 
 honest controversalist and of the bad politi- 
 cian." 
 
 But I will not amplify here. The .second 
 part of your argument was positive. You 
 thus exhibited it : " Whoever will study the 
 Patriarchal and Levitical institutions will see 
 the principle of human bondage and of pro- 
 perty in man, divinely sarlctioned, if not di- 
 vinely ordained and in all the sayings of our 
 Saviour we hear no injunction for the sup- 
 pression of a slavery which existed under his 
 
 *See, aleo, Noavder'sCIiarch History, vol. 1. Beat- 
 tie's Elements of Knapp's Theology, eto. 
 
 ^'Amons these principles are the unity of the haman 
 race— the common duties and destiny of men, eto. 
 If it had been the design to adduae specific passages 
 of Scripture aeainst slavery it would not have been 
 difficult. They are numerous, e g„ Qenesis i, 26, 29, 
 Exodus xxi. 10, Deut. xxiii, 15, Romans xvii, 26, 
 Col. iv, 1, 1 Tim.. 9, 10. The truth is, the Hebrew 
 languaRo bad no sinfrle word to denote a slave. It 
 had but one word— eicrf or abed to express all the 
 relations of servitude. Abaci, the verb, means to 
 labor to work. The noun abed means a laborer, a 
 servant— not a slave. The same is true of the Qreek 
 (loi'laa, a servant, and duleo, to serve. Taey denote 
 finj Bott of Kervice or servant. Tho Qreek for slave 
 is andrapod'jn ; but it is not used in the New leata- 
 ment in the passages which the advocates of slavery, 
 including Bishop Hopkins, are accustomed to quote 
 snd to rely upon. So that the more critically the 
 Scriptures are examined, the more unsupported does 
 the assumption appear that they sanction slavery, 
 or thejdea of property in man. 
 
 eyes, while he delivered many maxims and 
 principles, which, like the golden rule, enter 
 right into and regulate the relation. So do 
 the writings of Paul abound with the regula- 
 tions of the relation, but not with injunctions 
 for its suppression. If we go to the most ac- 
 credited commentators, or consult divines 
 really wise and good in our midst, or, what is 
 better, study and search the Scriptures for 
 ourselves, we shall fail to find a law which, 
 fairly interpreted and applied, justifies any 
 man in asserting, in or out of the pulpit, that 
 the negro slavery of the United States is 
 sinful." 
 
 It will at once be seen that this is what is 
 styled " analogical argumentation," and as 
 Hedge says in his " Logic," p. 85, '' it is an 
 unsafe ground of reasoning, — and its conclu- 
 sions shoald seldom be received without some 
 degree of distrust." Its force as is remarked 
 by Mills, depends upon the closeness and 
 number of the points of resemblance, and to 
 give it any strength thene should be exact, and 
 if possible numerous ; but as you pointed out 
 " no particulars of similarity" between Patri- 
 archal and Levitical" servitude, Roman 
 slavery, and African bDndage in the United 
 States, your conclusions are necessarily illo- 
 gical and unsatisfactory — vox et preterm 
 nihil." 
 
 But I am not done with your positive argu- 
 ment. I must present it in its moat serious 
 aspect. 
 
 And what was it ? Surprising as it may 
 seem, it is this : 
 
 Not that slavery in the United States — not 
 that negro slavery is sanctioned by God ; hut 
 human bondage without regard to time, locali- 
 ties, races, or colors. 
 
 Let no one, for a moment, be rash enough 
 to dispute the correctness of this statement. 
 For here are your words : " Whoever will 
 study the Patriarchal and Levitical institu- 
 tions will see the principle of human bond- 
 age AND OV PROPERTY IN MAN DIVINELY 
 SANCTIONED IK NOT DIVINELY OEDAINED. 
 
 That the force, or character and tendency 
 of this position may be more fully exhibited. 
 I will produce the candid and perspicuous 
 statement of it contained in " Sociology for 
 the South, or the Failure of Free Society, by 
 George Fitzhugh, Richmond, Va., 1851," and 
 which has been repeatedly endorsed by " the 
 leading prints" of the South. On pp. 94 — 98 
 he says : 
 
 " We deem this peculiar question of negro 
 slavery of very little importance. The issue 
 is made throughout the world on the general 
 subject of slavery in the abstract," 
 
 "Ham, a son of Noah, was condemned to 
 slavery, and his posterity after him. We do 
 
18 
 
 not adopt the theory that he was the ancestor 
 of the negro race. 27ie Jewish slaves were 
 not negroes, and to confine the justification 
 of slavery to that race would be to weaken 
 its scriptural authority, and to lose the whole 
 weight of profane authority, for we read of 
 no negro slavenj in ancient times.^' 
 
 And he subsequently adds, p. 225, " Sla- 
 
 very, black or white, is right and necessary. ^^ 
 
 This, then, is the culmination of your ar- 
 
 prument, as respects the servitude of the Old 
 
 Testament. 
 
 Nor can its result be difFerent,[conceded in 
 connection with the slavery prevalent in the 
 ages of Christ and His Apostles. 
 
 For, as Dr. E. Thomson observes,* " that 
 Slavery was also chiefly of whites, not of 
 blacks." The same fact is presented in the 
 I' New American Cyclopedia, article Slavery," 
 in Blair on Slavery, and other works. 
 
 It is, indeed, an historical truth, which no 
 scholar will for a moment contradict. And 
 hence the defence of negro slavery, which 
 yon endeavored to deduce Jrom the New Tes- 
 tament, terminates as that'which you derived 
 from the Old Testament, in the justification 
 of slavery, irrespective of the complexion of 
 the skin, or other physiological distinctions. 
 And this is your ultimate and true position. 
 It would not be difficult to add more ; but 
 it would be useless.* I might consider the 
 
 • Article in Methodist Quarterly Review. 
 
 • In fact, in view of your dogmatic asaertion that 
 no condemnation of slavery could he found in the 
 ^crtpturea, I might have declined noticing in any 
 form your argumentation. For as Home observes 
 in his Introduction to the Study .of the Bible," 
 
 It »8 onlju an unbiased mind that can attain the true 
 ana genuine seme of Scripture." 
 
 hauteur and intolerance, exhibited through 
 out your speech, and show how you, 
 
 Pi«™i,:v, 1 ■' Too eager in dispute, 
 n«,!!3i* ,! ,^°<ia3 your matchless fury rose, 
 i^amn d all for heretics who durst oppose." 
 
 But enough has been written to convince 
 many that in every important respect you 
 are destitute of the qualifications which are 
 necessary for the position for which you have 
 been nominated by an unpatriotic faction, 
 and which it appears you are exceedingly 
 solicitous to attain. And most earnestly do 
 I .hope that the people of Pennsylvania, 
 forming correct judgments of your principles, 
 sentiments, abilities, and purposes, rising in 
 the power of incensed freemen, will rebuke 
 your lofty aspirations, and leave you after 
 the second Tuesday of October to exclaim, 
 in nearly the exact words of Cardinal Wol- 
 sey: 
 
 " S?^®?®}}' * ^°^s farewell to all my greatness I 
 i.his IS the state of man. To-day he puts forth 
 ine tender leaves of hope, lo-morrow blossoms. 
 And bears the blushing honors ihics upon him. 
 ine third day comes a frost, a kiUing frost ; 
 And when he thinks— good easy maa— full surely 
 Mis greatness is a ripening, nips his root, 
 And then he falls «s / do. 1 have ventured. 
 Ltike little wanton boys that swim on bladders, 
 ihis many summers in a sea of glory, 
 ^ut far beyond my depth. My high-blown pride 
 At length broke under me, and how has left me, 
 iy.^^^yaiid oidwith service, to the mercy 
 Ot a rude stream, that must forever hide me. 
 
 And when I faU, I feel like Lucifer, 
 JNever to hope again 1" 
 
 Yours, &o.. 
 
 September 17, 1863. 
 
 WESTMORELAND. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 709 278 5