(fell isoo Q 
 
 Glass 
 Book, 
 
 44^ 
 
 ^~ 
 

 
 VIWI>EX 
 
 ON THE LIABILITY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE ABOI.ITIONISTS 
 
 cxizivxxivAL puzirisKMsrrT, 
 
 AND ON THE 
 
 I>UTY OF THE NOW-SLAVB-HOLDIWCl STATES 
 
 ..TO t 
 
 SUPPRESS THEIR EFFORTS. 
 
 CIIARLKSTON: 
 PJUNTKD BY A. F.. .MIM KR, 
 
 No. 4 Bioaii-.slrtet. 
 
 1835. 
 

 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The following pages are given to the public, under an impression of the 
 great good their dissemination is likely to produce among the American 
 People. The Numbers originally appeared in the " Charleston Courier," 
 over the signature of " Vindex;" and are thrown into their present shape, 
 by the consent of the Author — a gentleman of high legal attainments — ivho 
 yielded to the solicitation of friends that deemed them, of sufficient importance 
 to occupy a more enduring form than is found in the columns of a Daily 
 Papier. The subjects discussed are such, as have not hitherto occupied the con- 
 sideration of our brethren of the non-slave-holding States ; perhaps for the 
 plain reason, that the issries involved, did not immediately concern them; 
 and the danger arising to Southern Institutions from the efforts of the 
 Abolitionists, seemed to be, only of possible and remote consequence. 
 A crisis, however, has arisen, when it becomes necessary to speak out in 
 vindicution of the honour and sovereig7ity of the Slave-holding States, 
 and to WARN those disposed to tamper ivith the rights of property, secured 
 to them by the Federal Constitution, that they may not do so with impunity, 
 nor escape the punishment due to to their icickedness, by claiming to he citi- 
 zens of another State. The principles insisted on are S7tch. as becomes every 
 Southern man to know, and ^chich, if carried into practice, will put at nought 
 the misrhievous designs of our enemies ; endear the connexion which binds us 
 together as a common family: and render the FNION itself what it ought 
 
 to be, A PILLAR OP SAFETY TO ALL TIJE StATES. 
 
 
VXlffDEX, ^c. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 ©OME persons at tlic Norili calliii!^ lliomselvps tlio friends of "free 
 «liscussion," and wlio insist on tlieirri^ht (perhaps tlicy mean power) 
 to use the Post-Office of the United States for the cirnilalion of 
 any and all sorts of doctrines and purposes, need to be reminded, it 
 seems lo me, of a fmv things which they have forgotten, or to he 
 inlonned upon some points which they have wilfully or ignorantly 
 overlooked. The right set up by the abolitionists to disseminate, by 
 mail, in the slave-holding States, their noxious views on the subject 
 of slavery (to call tlu'in by no liarslnM' name,) has been insisted on 
 with so much confid<M)ce, and defended with so much 7,eal, as to have 
 induced the countenance of others, who profess themselves unfriend- 
 ly to their schemes, and entirely opposed to their projects. It has 
 been correctly observed, that in all the slave-lioldinsj Slates, the 
 circulation of papers or pamphlets, calculated to weaken the authority 
 of the master over the slave, or to disturb the relation between 
 them, as it is adjusted by the laws of such States, or in any way to 
 create any disturbance of the public peace in relation to that sub- 
 ject is made a highj y criminal offence, in some punishable with 
 death, in others by severe penalties. Now it will not be denied, 
 unless by the wildest fanatic, (one disposed to deny the validity of 
 all existing constitutions, laws, and principles, which stand in his 
 way,) that the internal policy of every independent State or gov- 
 ernment, is a matter exclusively for its own consideration. This 
 will not be denied of the States which com|)ose this Union. 'J'lie 
 subject of slavery, therefore, as well as every other connected with 
 its own domestic affairs, is one exclusively within the control of each 
 State for itself, with which no foreign power or person, has any 
 right to intermeddle. This was so when the Constitution of the 
 United States was adopted, and this great bond of union, so far 
 from containing any thing favourable to the right of interference of 
 any other State or its citizens with another, on this subject, take-; 
 
6 
 
 other way, the prohibited act. Tlie Post Office* Department was 
 never intended, in any of its operations or authority, to overrule 
 the acknowledged rights and just powers of the States, nor in its 
 legitimate use can it be perverted to such a purpose. It would 
 otherwise become a common curse, rather than a coinmon blessing, to 
 those who ordained and gave it vitality and power. So far as the 
 duties of the office of a Post Master are supposed to require, the 
 circulation of seditious pamphlets in this State, it involves a mis- 
 conception of the true duties of that office, and if the thing were 
 expressly required to be done, the requisition would be void, as con- 
 trary to a duty and a law of higher obligation and of controlling au- 
 thority. The only thing a Post Master, in the case supposed, could 
 deny, would be that of any criminal intent on his part, which seems 
 necessary to constitute the offence. But would that hold 1 Could 
 he expect to be believed, if lie were to assert that he circulated 
 through the community, (perhaps among the slaves themselves,) the 
 most iiitlammatory and seditious appeals, with a full knowledge of 
 their character and tendency, but without any intent to produce mis- 
 ehief? A man who should throw a lighted torch into your house at 
 midnight, might as we!! allege that he had no intent to wrap it in 
 flames, or that in setting fire to a train of gunpowder, he had no idea 
 it would explode. There is, therefore, no real conflict of duty in this 
 matter. In this State, the Post Masters, as well as others, are in- 
 hibited, 'luder the severest penalties, from giving any circulation to 
 seditious pamphlets or writings. If there were any conflict of duties, 
 wliat are the penalties of stopping the circulation, compared with 
 those which result from forwarding it? What are the consequences 
 to the community on the one hand and the other? On one side tbey 
 are light as gossamer, while on the other, they are of the most fear- 
 ful magnitude, whether you regard the individual or the public. No 
 good man could hesitate a moment in his choice — and it is hoped 
 tliat by the concurrent action of Southern Post Masters, the baleful 
 poison which is sent for our destruction through this channel, will 
 find our country more impenetrable by the virtue and patriotism of 
 the people, than if surrounded by walls — that thus the seeds of 
 plague and of pestilence, which miscreants would scatter among us, 
 with reckless indifference, may fall innocuous to the ground, beyond 
 our limits ; though even there, it is to he ho])ed, not beyond the reach 
 of justice. 
 
I woui.w siiiiijt'st tliiit ail a|)|)lic;ilioii lit; iii;ulc l)\ tlic KxiMiiliv of 
 this State to tlu' Executive of tlie ?»tate of New -York, for llie pei- 
 soiis of Tappan and other proniiaeiit aholitioiiists, to he dealt with 
 under our hnvs. The only question wliich can arise is, whctlier liicy 
 are lialile to tke criminal justice of this State 1 ihiiik il may he shewn, 
 upon good authority; that they are amei^uhle to the jiinsiii.tion 
 of our courts of justice. The laws to whieh I now particularly itlhidc, 
 are the acts of our Legislaturp of ISiOand \H22. Tiie first enacts, 
 " Tliat if any wliite person shall he duly convicted of liavio},' directly 
 or indirectly circulated, or brought within this State, an)' wiitleii or 
 printed paper, with intent to distiirh the peace or seciirily of the 
 same, in relation to the slaves of the people of this State, such per- 
 sons shall he adjudged guilty of a hitdi misdemeanor, and siiall he 
 fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, and inij)risoned not ex- 
 ceeding one year." The act of 1822 enacts, "that if any person 
 or persons shall counsel, aid or hire, any slave or slaves, free ne- 
 groes or persons of colour, to raise a rebellion or insurrection with- 
 in this State, wiiether any rebellion or insurrection do actuullv take 
 place or not, every such person or persons, on conviction thereof, 
 siiall be adjudged felons, and suffer death without benefit of clergy." " 
 
 Now it may be said, that these deluded men are not citizens nor even 
 residents of South-Carolina, and are, therefore, not bound by her 
 criminal laws, and that as long as they are distinguished by their 
 present admirable foresight and courage, and keep out of the lindts 
 of this State, they may carry on their diabolical machinations with 
 impunity. This I deny. As long as these men confine tluir fliscus- 
 sions to the enlightenment of their ovvn people, (who hav(< no con- 
 cern with the subject,) they may continue, (if disposed,) to expend 
 their superfluous and spurious philanthropy, without |>rofit, if not 
 without crime. But the moment any citizen of the United Stntes 
 though living out of South-Carolina, becomes instrumental in the 
 circulation, within the State of any seditious appeals to our slaves, 
 or, in the words of the act, shall "counsel, aid or hire, our slaves to 
 raise a rebellion," provided that counsel is given within the State of 
 South-Carolina, they are, upon the strictest principles of criminal 
 law, liable to the penalties imposed by our laws. Suppose that 
 Arthur Tappan and others, concerned in the printing and circulation 
 of Abolition tracts, can be shown to have sent their papers within 
 the limits of South-Carolina, by mail or otherwise, that act is a pub- 
 lication of them, in this State, as much as though they had Itronght 
 
8 
 
 ihcm personally into the State, or iiad preached the doctrines ihe^ 
 contain orally to our people. The law of libel furnishes a strong 
 analogy on this subject. If a man in England write a libel in the 
 oxtreniest county, and send it by mail to London, the receipt of it 
 at the post-office in that place is such a publication of it there as to 
 constitute the offence and render it triable at the latter place. So 
 too, if a man in the remotest part of Ireland, should write a libel in 
 that kingdom, and send ivky mail to any part'of England, the offence 
 would be complete, and he would be liable to be tried in the country 
 where the letter was received. These positions are abundantly sus- 
 tained by decided cases, and furnish the very principles upon which 
 Tappan and his associates may be demanded for trial, and subjected 
 to the offended justice of South-Carolina. Can it be contended that 
 a man, three feet within the Georgia line, may shoot at and kill 
 a citizen of South-Carolina, and not be amenable to her laws? 
 Which State, in such a case, would have jurisdiction over the 
 offence? Can there be any doubt it would be South-Carolina? 
 I throw out these suggestions for the consideration of others more 
 competent than myself, to examine the subject, and shall be 
 happy lo contribute my mite, though it were my all, to assist, protect, 
 and defendt he settled and sacred institutions of the country against 
 open violence or insidious fanaticism. 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 At a time like the present, it is not necessary that a citizen of the 
 United States, attached to the institutions, and anxious for the pros- 
 perity of his country, should offer any apology for bringing to public 
 view considerations (in his opinion) calculated in no small degree to 
 bring back harmony and peace to our distracted land, to promote the 
 crencral welfare, and to strengthen and perpetuate the bonds of our 
 liitherto happy Union. It would seem that the very ties by which 
 the several States of this great confederacy are so closely united, the 
 strong and intimate relations by which we are associated together as 
 one people, have in some measure invited the mistaken and unadvised 
 schemes of those, whose efforts are spreading around us the elements 
 of discord and confusion, and whose projects threaten to involve in 
 utter ruin and devastation no inconsiderable portion of our common 
 
 country. 
 
 The conduct pursued by the fanatics at the North, in relation to 
 slavery, could hardly have been expected were the States, which now 
 
compose the Union, entirely unronncMttul anil iiidcpciiili'Dl of each 
 other. Any attempt, under such circumstances, t(» iniirt<rt! with ilie 
 concerns of one iState, by another State, nr its ciiizenN, tii under- 
 mine the security oilier institutions, let them he what they may, would 
 be considered a gross violation of the laws of nations, coiKleimierl hy 
 every principle which should characterize the conduct <jl one nation 
 and its citizens towards anolh»>r, and would receive, as it would de- 
 serve, the reprobation of every enlightened and reflecting mind. 
 
 In the case supposed, it is not too nuuh to say that tht; altem|)t 
 would not be made. The right of ev(;ry iiidepcMident community to 
 regulate its own domestic concerns, without foreiL^n iulluence or inter- 
 ference, is too plain a principle to be controverted in tlu'<)ry, and too 
 essential to the security of all goverments, to be violated with impu- 
 nity. It is precisely because we are united in bonds of amity and 
 peace, because we are parts of one gix'at system, joined together for 
 the attainment of social haj)piness and the preservation of our liber- 
 ties, that men have been misled to extend the scene of their \ isionary 
 schemes of philanlhropy throughout the whole country, as thou;:h 
 there were no such things as several and independent States, entitled 
 to and possessing their own separate government, laws and peculiar 
 instuiions as though we constituted in fact but one magnilicent and 
 consolidated government, having but one common iniere.;t, governed 
 by the same laws, and to be equally and alike alfecled hy the same 
 general influence. 
 
 That such views as these involve a total misconception of the 
 theory and character of our system of government, will not i)e deni- 
 ed, and need not to be argued, and that this fundamental error in re- 
 gard to our political organization, lies deeply at the root of the 
 schemes and operations, of the abolitionists, and that it has been, and 
 now is, with them, ot great influence and aid, must be perfectly evi- 
 dent. That it has further influence in the promotion of their ob- 
 noxious schemes, than is generally supposed, I am strongly persuaded ; 
 and if it were possible to bring back these misguided men to a just 
 understanding of the nature of our social systems, I doubt not it would 
 go far to circumscribe the scene of their enterprise, if not to mode- 
 rate their zeal and restore them to the influence of reason, of law, 
 and of justice. I have said that were the States entirley discon- 
 nected, and baaring the same relation to each other that subsists 
 among independent and neighboring nations, the attempts now ma- 
 king to disturb, if not destroy, the domestic institutions of the 
 
 /Southern States, would scarcely be thought of; they would require 
 
 o 
 
10 
 
 a hardihood to undertake, a disregard of'imnciple, and a contempt of 
 the rules, which by universal consent, regulate the iutercourse and 
 conduct of nations, which are scarcely to be imagined. It may not be 
 improper at this time, as it is not unprofitable, occasionally to refer 
 to old and familiar princip\es, petere fontes, to refresh the mind with 
 the salutary lessons of history and experience, which from their very 
 triteness and universality, seem frequently, and in times of great ex- 
 citement especially, to be forgoten or overlooked. We were much 
 struck in reading the work of a celebrated writer, with certain pas- 
 sages establishing and illustrating doctrines, which would seem to be 
 unknown or wholly disregarded (for they cannot be controveted), by 
 those so actively engaged in practising upon the fidelity of the slave, 
 and equally by those who, living out of the reach of the danger, seem 
 disposed to countenance, or affect to thijik lightly of the matter. We 
 will give a few of them, with such comments and application as they 
 seem to suggest, in reference to the present state of affairs. We 
 premise our citations here by a single remark, that the most zealous 
 abolitionist could not desire the enterprise in which he is engaged, to 
 be considered in a more favorable light, "than as one honestly 
 inteni^ed to jjromote the happiness of both master and slave, and 
 to redeem the States in which slavery exists, from a great moral 
 and political evil," and it will be seen that even in this point of view 
 their operations, if not their objects, are equally indefensible. But 
 to our authority. In treating of the duty wiiich nations owe to each 
 other and the spirit of amity and kindness which should be cultivated 
 and diffused in their mutual relations, our writer remarks — "that a 
 nation must not confine itself to the preservation of other States, 
 it should likewise, according to its power and their want of its assis- 
 tance, contribute likewise, to their perfection." — Vattel, p. 196. 
 " A State is more or less perfect, as it is more or less adapted 
 to obtain the end of civil society, which consists in procuring to 
 its members all things relating to the necessities, conveniences, and 
 enjoyments of life, and to their welfare in general ; likewise in pro- 
 vidin<r for the peaceful enjoyment of projjerty, and the safe and easy 
 administration of justice, in fine for defence against any foreign 
 violence. This, every nation should ocasionally, and accordmg to its 
 power, contribute, not only that another nation may enjoy these advan- 
 tages, but likewise render it capable of procuringthem itself." — p. 196 
 " But though a nation be obliged to promote, as far as lies in itsjjmrer, 
 the perfection of others, it is nut entitled forcibly to obtrude these 
 good offices on them. Such an attempt would be to violate their natu- 
 ral liberty. To compel any one to receive a kindness, requires au- 
 
11 
 
 fhnri/ij over fii III, and luil'iinix an tihsoliifi li/ frn and iudi jn mh ul. 
 Ibid, iy(). Now it will hardly bu coiileiided tin; iibolitionistsuf lli« 
 North have manifosted no dispostion to obtrude what they may <on- 
 sidor their good oflices, upon the people ol ibi- Soiuherii States. 
 It certainly requires no further evidence to show that the per)|ile nt 
 the slave holing States are disinclined to receive tiieir kind prolfers ol 
 assistance in the management of their own aflairs; their well consi- 
 dered and disinterested advice in matters which tlio}' do not under- 
 stand ; such indications have at least been given, as in the common 
 courtesies of life between individuals, (which furnish, by the bye no 
 inapt illustration of wiiat the conduct of nations should be to each 
 other) would make a repetition of the oiler a breach of good man- 
 ners and offensive to all notions of propriety. Sup|)ose my neigh- 
 bour, having all his own affairs most adminil)ly arranged, (we will not 
 suppose they were overlooked or neglected for a moment) slioidd take 
 up an opinion, that some capital error had been conimiti'd by me in the 
 foundation of my house, which I had built with every |)ossible care, 
 and at ^reat expense, and after once [lolitely expressing his views 
 •MH on the subject, should not only, day after day, annoy me with re- 
 peated cautions of my insecurity, but should disturb my family, and 
 frighten my servants, with constant repetitions of his apprehensions, 
 and should obtrude his on)inous croakings at morn, noon, and 
 night by the fire side, and in the chamber, would this be consi- 
 dered neighbourly conduct] Would 1 not be justified in swearing 
 the peace aginst him, or in defending myself from his aggressions 
 by any means in my jiower ? I have heard of a poor man's being 
 repeatedly called up at night out of his warm bed, i)y false alarms ol 
 fire, for the amusement of some mischievous boy^, but I bean! too 
 that the poor man's patience became exhausted, and th.it the last re- 
 ception he gave his ojiciu us friend was sach as to disqualify him ft»r 
 further offence. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 I find in the book to which I have previously referred, the follow 
 
 ing passages : — 
 
 " It is impossible that nations should mutually discharge all these 
 several duties, if they do not love each other. Tiiis is the pure source 
 from which the olTices of liuraanity should proceed: they will preserve 
 the character and perfection of it. These nations vvill be seen sincerely 
 and cordially to help each other, earnestly to promote ilie comnnin wel- 
 fare, and cultivate peace without jeaiousy or distrust. A real friendship 
 
12 
 
 will be seen to reign among them, and this happy state consists in a mu- 
 tual atlectiou. Every nation is obliged to cultiv ate the Iriendship of others, 
 carefully avoiding whatsoever might kindle enmity. To this, present 
 and direct interest, often invites wise and prudent uations : a more noble 
 interest, more general and less direct, is too rarely the motive of politi- 
 cians." 
 
 " But though the duties of a nation towards itself, set bounds to the 
 obligation of performing the offices of humanity, they cannot in the least 
 atTect the prohibition of doing any injury to others, of causing them any 
 unjust detriment. To hurt, to otlend, to do injur\', to cause damage, are 
 not precisely of the same import. To hurt any one, is in general to aug- 
 ment the imperfection of hinjself, or that of his condition — to render his 
 person or condition more imperfect. If every man is obliged, even by his 
 very nature, to assist in the perfection of others, he is much more forbid 
 to increase their imperfection, and that of their State. Ihe same duties 
 are incumbent on nations, none of them is to commit any actions tendino^ 
 to impair the perfection of others and that of their condition, or to impede 
 their progress." 
 
 " This general principle prohibits all nations every evil practice, tending 
 to create disturbance in anotJier State, to foment discord or corrupt its 
 citizens, to alienate its allies, to raise enemies, to sully its reputation, and 
 deprive it of its nutural advantages.'''' 
 
 " Nothing is more opposite to the duties of humanity, nor more contrai-v 
 to the society which should be cultivated by nations, than offences or ac- 
 tions which give a just displeasure to others." 
 
 " As express promises and engagements should be inviolable, every 
 wise and virtuous nation will be careful, previously, to examine and wei|p 
 a treaty of conrmerce, before the concluding, that it may not thereby be 
 engaged to any thing contrary to the duties it owes itself and others." 
 
 " Nature has established a perfect equality of rights between indepen- 
 dent nations. Consequently, none can pretend to prerogative; their right 
 to freedom and sovereignty renders them equals." 
 
 " It is a manifest consequence of the liberty and independence of na- 
 tions, that all have a right to be governed as they think proper, and that 
 none have the least authority to interfere in the government of another 
 State. Of all the rights that can belong to a nation, sovereignty is, doubt- 
 less, the most precious, and that which others ought the most scrupulously 
 to respect, if they would not do it an injury." 
 
 " After having e^ablished this truth, that foreign nations have no right 
 to intrude themseh^s into the government of an independent State, it is 
 not difficult to prove that this State has a right of refusing to sutler it. To 
 govern itself according to its pleasure, is a uecessaiy part of its indepen- 
 dence." 
 
 "An independent people is, with respect to their religion, accountable 
 to none but God; they have a right to conduct themselves, in this res- 
 pect, as in all others, according to the light of conscience, and not to 
 sutTer any foreigner to interfere in an affair of so delicate a nature." 
 
 " All nations are then strictly obliged to cultivate justice with respect 
 to each other, to observe it scrupulously, and carefully to abstain from 
 every thing that may violate it. Every one ought to render to others 
 what belongs to them, to respect their rights, and to leave them in the 
 peaceable enjoyment of them. From this indispensable obligation, which 
 nature imposes on nations, as well as on all those who are bound to prac- 
 tice it towards each other, results the right of every State not to suffer 
 any of its privileges to be taken away, or any thing which lawfully be- 
 longs to it ; for in ojjposing this, it acts in conformity to all its duties, and 
 therein consists the right. This right is perfect, that is accom])anied 
 with the right of using force to make it observed. From whence arises, 
 as from so many branches, first, a right of a just defence, which belongs 
 
lo every ualiou, or tlic lij^lu i>l ii-<iii^ force u^aiusi wiioi-ver altHrk-* it, 
 anil its |)riviicges. Tliis is the Ibuudalion ofa (itfcusive war. Secondly, 
 the riglit to obiairi justice by force, if we cannot oliiain it otlierwisc, or lo 
 pursue our riglit by force of arms. Tliis is tlir I'ouiiilatiou of an oU'euhive 
 war." 
 
 " Wlioever ortt'ndsihe State, injures tts riglits, disturbs its traii<inillitv 
 or does it a prejudice in any manner wliaisoever, doclan-s hiinsi If lis 
 enemy, and puts iiimselt iiia situation to bi; justly puuisiied tiir it. Who- 
 ever uses a citizen ill, iiulirecily olliuds the State \\ hich ou;l;Ii1 to j)rotect 
 this citizen; and his sovereii;ii should re%enge the injuries, |)iinisli the 
 aggressor, and if possible, oblige him lo make entire satisfaction. iJui, 
 on the other hand, the nation or the s<jvi reign ouglit not lo sutler thf 
 citizens to do a£i injury to the subjects of another State, nnicli less to oMciid 
 the State itself; and that, not only because no sovereign ought to permit 
 those vviio are under his command, to violate the precepts of the law of 
 nature, which forbids all injuries; but also, because naticius ought mutu- 
 ally to respect each oiher, to abstain from ali otlences, from all abuse, 
 from all injury, and in a word, from every thing that may be of ])rejudice 
 to others, if a sovereigti, who might keej) his subjects within the rules of 
 justice and peace, sutiers thein to injure a foreign nation, either in its bod}' 
 or its members, he does no less an injur}' to that nation than if he injur- 
 ed them himself. In short, the safety of the State, and that of human 
 society, requires this attention from every sovereign. Jf vou let loose 
 the reigns of your subjects against foreign nations, these will behave in 
 the same manner to you; and instead of that friendly intercourse which 
 nature has established between all men, we should see nothing but one 
 nation robbing another." 
 
 " But if a nation or its leaders approve and ratify the fact committed by a 
 citizen, it makes tiie act its own, the oflence ought then to be attributed 
 to the nation, as the authorof the true injury of which the citizen is per- 
 haps only the instrument. If the otlended State kee])s the guilty in his 
 power, he may, without difficulty, punish him, and oblige him to make 
 satisfaction. If the guilty escape, and returns into his own country, jus- 
 tice may be demanded from his sovereign; and since this last ought Hot 
 to sutler his subjects to molest the subjects of others, or to do them an injury, 
 much less should he permit them audaciously to offend foreign powers; 
 he ought to oblige the guilty to rejiriir the damage, if that be ])ossible, to 
 inflict on him an exemplary punishment; or in short, accordinji to the 
 namre of the case, and the circumstances attending it, to deliver him up 
 to the offended State, thereto receive justice. This is j)rettv generally 
 observed with respect to great crimes, or such as are ecpiallyconlrarv to 
 the laws, and the safety of all nations, assassins, incendiaries," and robbers, 
 are seized every where at the desire of the sovereign of the place wher^ 
 the criine was committed, and delivered up to his justice." 
 
 " The sovereign who refuses to cause a reparation to be made of the 
 dainage caused by his subject, or to punisli the guilty, or in short, to dtdi 
 ver him up, renders hirnself in some measure an accomjilice in the 
 injury, and becomes responsible for it. — VdUfCs Low of JSations — tip. 
 97, 108, 201, 202, 205, 209, 215, 217, 221, 222, 224. 
 
 Ill the face of these plain principles of justice, no less distin- 
 guished for practical wisdom and enlarged philanthropy, tiian their 
 contormity to the spirit and genius of Christianity, acknowledged 
 among all civilized communities, what defence can be made for 
 those who, with a reckless indifl'crcnce to consequences ; from au 
 intenaperate zeal, and the most partial and mistaken views, have 
 
14 
 
 Ix'en, and are even now, so acfiveli/ engaged In d'lslurh'mg the peace 
 ot othci comraiuiities ; in open attacks, and more insidious opera- 
 tions, upon the domestic policy of other States? Are the positions 
 laid down by our author, the mere visionary speculations of a 
 dreaming philosopher, overanxious perhaps for the improvement of 
 human society, or are they, as they are represented, the Laws of 
 Nations, founded upon natural justice and eternal truth, necessary 
 not only to the prosperity, but to the very existence of government ? 
 The application of these rules to the schemes and eftbrts of the 
 Abolitionists, .md those who countenance them, shew how far they 
 have been led on, step by step, from the path of duty. How many 
 and what -acred principles, established by coinmon consent for the 
 protection of society, tliey have violated, and what just responsibility 
 they have incured upon those principles, for the mischief they have 
 already perpetrated, and the more awful consequences that may re- 
 sult from their doings. In view of ail this, we would ask them to 
 pause and reflect, ere it is too late, and we address ourselves espe- 
 cially to those w!io, not yet inaccessible to the voice of reason, nor 
 insensible to the claims ot justice — may listen to our appeal, to con- 
 sider well these things, and the end thereof, which is death. To 
 such, we would put afew plain questions, even without undertaking to 
 shew which (we think) we can easily do, how much mistaken their 
 views upon the sub)ect of slavery are, and we would ask an answer 
 to them in the same spirit of candor and fairness in which they are 
 put. 
 
 Is not every independent nation or community entitled to govern 
 itself b}' its own laws 1 
 
 Has any other community, or have the citizens of other States 
 any right to interfere in the regulation of its affairs 1 
 
 Are not the States of this Union, in all matters of mere domestic 
 or internal arrangement, sovereign and independent of each other, 
 and of all other governments, powers and individuals ? 
 
 Were there no Constitution or Government of the United States, 
 or in other words, were the States entirely separate, would anj' 
 State or its citizens, upon the principles of justice, or the laws of 
 nations, have any right to intermeddle with the institutions or do- 
 mestic policy of another, and especially upon so delicate a subject 
 as slavery ? 
 
 Has the Constitution of the United States expressly or impliedly 
 given such a right to the General Government, or to the States, or 
 does such right result to the States from their Union for purposes of 
 common utiiitv and benefit 1 
 
15 
 
 On the contrary, was not the Union hasiMl upon the existimf of 
 slavery, and does not the Constitution cxpressl}- recofrnize it, and 
 guarantee its inviolability 1 Is it not a fraud u|)oii those S(ate\, wlio 
 entered into the Union U|)on the I'uithof this sruarHiitee, ti> l;iin|)er 
 with, or in any way to weaken, tlie autliorily, or interfere with ilie 
 rights oi' tlie master 1 
 
 Are not the present elforts of tlie abolitionists immediately directed 
 to this purpssc, and calcidated to produce this effect \ 
 
 We believe that no man, having the least pretensions to candor, 
 can hesitate to answer these plain questions, in such a manner as will 
 shew, that in tiic efforts now makintr, the abolitionists are trampling 
 upon the most obvious and acknowledged principles of justice, the 
 fundamental laws of society, and the most sacred provisions of the 
 Constitution; endangering the permanency of our t'lorions tJnion, 
 and weakering the last bright hope of ri^guUited liberty, and popular 
 government, on earth. 
 
 No. f1. 
 
 We have seen that in matters of religion " an independent [jcople 
 "is accountable to none but God ; that they have a right to conduct 
 themselves in this respect, as in all others, according lo the light of 
 conscience, and not to suffer any foreigner to interfere in an affair 
 of so delicate a nature." This principle of the law of nations is not 
 understood to forbid an effort, by mild and lawful means, to persuade 
 a nation to receive a religion that is believed to be the only one tliat 
 is true and salutary ; but it clearly |)rohibits the use of force, or the 
 employment of measures which might endanger the frame of gov- 
 ernment or the harmony of society. If a nation should determine 
 that the doctrines of a particular faith are inconsistent with its safety, 
 no one can doubt that it would have an unquestionable right to reject 
 them, and to punish such as should attempt to introduce them con- 
 trary to its will. After its solenm deKirmination was annoiuiced, 
 those, who, in defiance of the rightful authority of the country, 
 should be found arrayed and combining together to resist it, would, 
 if detected in their enterprise, and punished for their temerity, be 
 entitled to but little sympathy. If a nation were about tf^stablish 
 by law, some particular form of religious worship, n might very well 
 tolerate, if not receive with gratitude, any suggestions from other 
 States, or their citizens, calculated to enlighten its judgment ; but it 
 would be a very different thing, after the matter was settled by law. 
 
16 
 
 and tlie whole frame of civil society built up on this foundation, for 
 other States or their citizens, to undertake, by systematic operations, 
 to produce disaffection and distrust, or to array upon this subject one 
 class of people aa;ainst another. The case of a State havini^ an 
 established religion running through all the arrangements of socie- 
 ty, and in that way intimately connected, if not identified, with the 
 existence and security of the government, is in a very different situa- 
 tion, in respect to this subject, from one which has no established 
 faith by the laws of the land, but has left the matter to individual 
 conscience and opinion. In the former case, we may well conceive 
 the danger which would result from the toleration of any foreign in- 
 fluence or interference, adverse to the prevailing and established 
 faith, while in the latter, it not being prescribed by the laws of the 
 country, nor having any direct or necessary connexion with the frame 
 of government, the freedom of discussion might well permit argu- 
 ment, advice, and appeals to the citizens individually, or at large, 
 from any and every quarter, without alarm. As far as the influence 
 of foreign States or citizens can be considered as in any sense justly 
 permissible on the subject of religion, does not a manifest distinction 
 occur, as to the mode of operation in the two cases above supposed. 
 In the State, in which we have supposed a religious faith to have 
 been established by law, and made the very foundation of the go- 
 vernment, giving form and fashion to its institutions, are not all ap- 
 peals from abroad to mere individual citizens on this subject, a direct 
 attempt to seduce them from their allegiance, to corrupt their integ- 
 rity, and a manifest interference with the rights of government? In 
 such a case is not an appeal to the constituted authorities of the 
 State, or to the legislative power especially, the only mode consis- 
 tent with honor and the laws of nations 1 When, in the other case, 
 where the subject has not been regulated by the laws of the society, 
 but every citizen left free to consult his own conscience and judg- 
 ment in the matter, addresses and arguments from the citizens of 
 other States might be legitimately made to the individual citizens? 
 The same reasoning applies, perhaps, in a stronger degree, to the 
 institution of slavery. In the slave-holding States it has been thought 
 inconsistent with the safety of society, that a certain class of people 
 should ■* enjoy the rights and privileges of freemen, and they have 
 been subjected by law to the conditions of an inferior order of society. 
 Such liberty and indulgences have been conceded to them by the 
 laws, as have been considered compatible with the public safety. 
 Such of the advantages of society have been extended to this class 
 of inhabitants, as in the judgment of those best qualified, and alone 
 
17 
 
 authorized to dt'ti-rmiiie that matter, tlieir character, hal)its ;iiul 
 condition, quaUfy them to receive and enjoy. What right then, 
 has the citizen of any other State or Nation, to disturb in any way, 
 this fundamental arrangement? Will it he said tliat the (!ffort is 
 only made by addressing the consciences of individuals, to produce 
 a change of opinion and feeling on this subject among individuiU 
 citizens? If it were a matter depending upon individual opinion 
 alone, about which the laws of the country were indiflerent, uncon- 
 nected with the polity and government of the States, the addresses of 
 the abolitionists might be considered perhaps less impertinent, though 
 not the less false in statement, nor less visionary in design. But is 
 it so 1 Slavery is upheld and establislied hy law. It enters into the 
 formation of our society as a necessary ingredient. It is a matter ol 
 government. In the deliberate conviction of the Southern States, 
 the system is essential to their pros[)erity, if not their very existence. 
 That it is not less indispensable to the prosperity of the Union, the 
 most intelligent and reflecting readily admit. In some of the States, 
 perhaps in most, if not all, a citizen cannot, if he would, emancipate 
 his slaves. I« is contrary to the policy of the country, and contrary 
 to express law. The public discussion of the pnjpriety or policy of - 
 abolishing: slavery, is necessarily in the slave-liolding States, as I 
 among more indivifluals, a proscribed subject. All addresses, pa- 
 pers and pamphlets, calculated to create dissention or disturbance f 
 in relation to this matter, are inhibited under the sevtM-est penalties- * 
 Are the abolitionists aware that the willing receipt ol their pamph- 
 lets in some of the States, with a knowledge and approval of their 
 tendency, is the hisihest offence a citizen can commit ? Are they 
 aware that in sending them, they are not only morally, but legally 
 guilty of the offence, and liable to punishment ? Do they suppose 
 that because they do not come into our territories and proclaim their 
 doctrines, they are guiltless of infringing our laws? Have they yet 
 to learn, that what a man does by his agent, lie is considered as doing 
 himself, and is equally resp')nsil)le in one case as the other ? There 
 is a law of this State which forbids, under a severe penalty, the 
 bringing into circulation within it, any paper or pamphlet calcula- 
 ted to create disturbances among the slaves. Is not that man guil- 
 ty of a violation of the law, who puts such a pamphlet in the Mail 
 for the purpose of being brought within this State ? Is the mail 
 carrier any thing but his agent in the execution of this purpose, es- 
 pecially as he is almost necessarily innocent of any knowledge of 
 that purpose ? Are not studied arguments to show the illegality of 
 Slavery, and eloquent (though false) statements and opinions of the 
 
18 
 
 cruelty of the system, eminently calculated to produce disturbance 
 if not rebellion ! It is not true that the character of a transaction 
 is to be judged of and derived from the laws of the State or country 
 where it takes place, exclusively, and without reference to the laws 
 of any other country. It is true only when the transaction is to 
 have elTect in the State or country where it takes place, but if it is 
 intended to operate in another country, it then derives its character 
 and consequences from the laws of the latter. This is a famihar 
 principle in the law of contracts, and is, perhaps, equally applicable 
 to crimes. If a man enters into a contract in one State to be per- 
 formed in another, it is to be interpreted by the laws of the latter, 
 and has attached to it the same principles of construction as if made 
 there. As there are ex vi termini, (or should be at least,) no Slaves 
 in the non-Slave-holding States, it will not be denied that all the 
 discussions on the subject of Slavery, the numerous societies and 
 combinations, the addresses and lectures, the contributions and the 
 unceasing productions of the Abolition press, are got up for efl'ect, 
 not upon communities where Slavery does not exist, but upon those 
 States where it does exist. All this is thought to be perfectly law- 
 ful, because in the States where Slaver}' does not exist, no right of 
 property is questioned or involved in these proceedings — no distur- 
 
 • bance ot the public peace hazarded — the very frame of society and 
 
 * the security of the government are equally unaffected — no express 
 , statutes are violated — and therefore, because the communities in 
 
 which these agitators live and move, are not directly concerned in 
 the consequences of their doctrines, they go on, and worst of all 
 are suffered to go on, with a total dis.cgard to the interests of others, 
 thinking themselves, and thought by those who look on, not only 
 innocent of crime, hut patriots and philanthropists. They sliould 
 know that the just estimate of their conduct, is not to be formed 
 from their supposed innocence of violating the laws of the country, 
 where they may be permitted to concoct their enterprises, but that 
 it must be founded upon (he consistency of their plans with the laws 
 of the country where they intend tliem to operate. Smuggling 
 goods into Great Britain, is no oflence against the laws of the United 
 States, but would not every honorable mind shrink from the per- 
 petration of such an act, (though perhaps not satisfied with the fair- 
 ness of the dutv imposed) and owing no obedience as a citizen to 
 its laws ■? Is there not something particularly degrading in the very 
 conception, of men, capable of hurling, as it were, from a place of 
 personal security, upon their unoffending fellow-citizens, firebrands, 
 arrows and death ] Let them not, however, lay with too mtich 
 
19 
 
 confidence, tluit flattfrinji unction to their souls. Thftir day of re- 
 tnuulioii conn s apace. They have assumed a (cartul responsii'ility, 
 thtr extent of \vi:!Lli cannot now l)e seen, and the day may come 
 when tliev will no lon^j^er i^lory in their sliame. But as tiiere are men 
 who are not to be deterred from their purposes, by any representa- 
 tion of tiie disastrous consequences which may result to others from 
 tlieni, and although insensible to the just indignation of an incensed 
 people, are sometimes stayed by some little [)ros[)ect of mere per- 
 sonal responsibility or inconvenience, let us see if they are so whol- 
 ly exenipl from liability to criminal accusation and punishment, as 
 they believe themselves to be 1 First, as to their liability to punish- 
 ment under our laws. If a man were to sf nd a letter from the State 
 of New- York, to an individual in Charleston, containing some 
 etherial and impalpable poison, for the purpose of his destruction 
 and should effect it, would not an otfcnce be committed against our 
 laws, though the mere act of adjusling the letter in New-York, 
 might not be punishable there ? Another case, has been put in il- 
 lustration of the same view, by yourselves, more strikingly in point. 
 Suppose a man, just on the other side of the Georgia line, and within 
 the limits of that States, should level his rifle at a citizen of South- 
 Carolina, and kill him, the latter being at the time within the limits 
 of this State, would he not be amoiudsle to our laws t Would ' 
 he not be equally amenable, though the act were not punishable by 
 the laws of Georgia ? But I think it iias already been elsewhere 
 demonstrated (by none, certainly, with more ability nor earlier than 
 yourselves,) that in sending these seditious papers into the slave- 
 holding States, the abolitionists, or such of them as have been con- 
 cerned in that business, havt; made themselves amenable to the vio- 
 lated laws of those States, and are demandable under the Laws of 
 Nations, if not under the express provisions of the Constitution of 
 the United States, as fugitives from justice. The passages already 
 referred to in our second number from Vatti^l, if recurred to, 
 will shew that under the Law of Nations, these men are demandable 
 as criminals, and that the Government, whore citizens, they are, 
 cannot refuse to surrender them, consistently with that law. In order 
 to test the liability of these reckless men to punishment under our 
 laws, and our right to demand them as fugitives from justice, it may 
 be ()roper to point out the mode of proceeding under the Constitu- 
 tion of the United Stat(;s, and the Act of Congress relating to this 
 subject. The Constitution of the United States, Art. 4, Sec. 1, is 
 us follows : " A person charged iu any Siate with treason, felon\', 
 er other crime, who shall flee from justice and he foiiml in another 
 
State, sliall, on deaiand of tlie Executive authority, of the State frouJ 
 which lie fled, be delivered up to be. removed to tlie State having 
 jurisdiction of tiie crime." 
 
 The act of Congress of 1793, contains various provisions to 
 carry into efl'ect this article of the Constitution, and rejfulates the 
 mode of proceeding in such cases. It will not be necessary to give 
 it at length, but simply to state its efTect. There are two modes of 
 proceeding established by the Act of Congress, by which to get pos- 
 session of fugitives from justice in other States, for trial where the 
 offence was committed. The first method, is for some person by 
 affidavit to charge Tappan, or any one of his co-adjutors, (who to 
 the knowledge of the deponent may have been concerned in sending 
 into, or circulating within this State, any abolition pamphlet,) with 
 the offence, and then to forward such affidavit to the Governor of 
 this State, with a request that he will demand the person of the in- 
 dividual charged, from the Executive of the State where he may be 
 as a. fugitive from justice. It will then be the duty of our Execu- 
 tive, if he should think the case within the Constitutional provision^ 
 to make such demand, and the Executive of the State upon whom 
 such demand should be made, would be bound to deliver him up for 
 trial. 
 
 The other mode of proceeding under the Act, and as one of 
 greater solemnity to be preferred on that account, is to submit a 
 Bill of Indictment, against any individual who may be known to 
 have sent these missiles into the State. This Bill may be preferred 
 before the Grand Jury of any District in the State, into which it 
 may be proved these papers have been sent. Upon such proof, the 
 Grand Jury would be obliged to find a Bill of Indictment, and upon 
 presenting a certified copy of such Bill to the Governor, it would 
 be hi.s duty to make the demand, as already stated. I would sug- 
 gest, that as many of these documents have been sent to Charlestoii 
 by Mail, that it is the duty of such citizens as have received them^ 
 to hand them over to the Attorney-General of the Slate, accompa- 
 nied with such evidence as they, or any others, may be able to give, 
 as to the agency of any particular individuals at the North, in send- 
 ing them here, whether derived from hand writing, or connexion 
 with the Abolition Societies from which they emanate. As the 
 Court of Sessions for this District is near at hand, it may be well 
 for the active and patriotic citizens of Charleston to see to this mat- 
 ter, and it is not to be doubted that our able and efficient Attorney- 
 General will giv^ all the aid on this subject, that its importance to 
 the community would seem to demand. In the views I have as yet 
 
^1 
 
 t%ken, I have endeavuunul to [»oint out the liahiliiy or llie iibolilion- 
 ists to punishment uiitlcr our laws, and the mode of proceeding un- 
 der the Constitution ot the United States, to subject them to trial in 
 the States, wiiere they have disseminated their poison. In my next, 
 I will undertake to siiew, and cliierty from the principles and autliuri- 
 ties already referred to, that it is the duty of the non-slave-holding 
 States, to punish hi/ etisting laws, if sufficient for that purpose, these 
 disiiirl)ors of the public peace ; and bi/ additional Irgislation, if ne- 
 cessary, to reduce the unbridled licentiousness of these audacious 
 men, within the sober bounds of regulated liberty, to some obsfsrv- 
 ance of the rights of others, and to prevent the inevitable ruin 
 which must otherwise result from their unchecked machinations. 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 We promised in our last, that we would undertake to show how 
 far the abolitionists are liable to punishment under the existing laws 
 of the States, where their enterprises are concocted, and from 
 whence their intlammatory appeals are issued; how far it is the duty 
 of those States, upon the acknowledged principles of the laws of 
 nations, and peculiarly as members of the Union, to punish these 
 disturbers of the peace and harmony of our Conftsderacy ; and we 
 assumed, that if the existing laws should be found insufficient to 
 cure the evil, that they are bound to adopt such a course of legisla- 
 tion as shall effect the object. The author to which we have alrea- 
 dy referred, after giving at some length the rules which should gov- 
 ern the intercourse of nations, furnishes in the subjoined passage, a 
 short summary of the api'lication and effect of the doctrines for which 
 he contends. 
 
 " This general principle of the law of nations, prohibits all nations, 
 every evil praciice, tending to create disturbance in another Siate, lo fo- 
 ment discord or corrupt, its citizens, to alienate its allies, to raise enemies, 
 to siiUv its reputation, and to deprive it of its natural advantages."— 
 VatteU p. 502. 
 
 Now take the case of two neighbouring independent nations, 
 totally unconnected with each other, and bound only by those com- 
 mon principles of justice which we have seen to be recognized in th« 
 law of nations, as establishing the rules of intercourse between them ; 
 let us suppose one of them to have adopted slavery by law, as u 
 foundation of its social system, and the other to have rejected it. 
 Each State (as we have seen) is equally competent to its own gov-' 
 ernmcnt, and neither has a right to interfere in the domestic policy 
 •f the other. Would it be consistent with the law of nations, and 
 
'2'i 
 
 this |ust e(jiiality and independence, for the non-slave-liolding Stately 
 not hy tile mere speculations of an occasional writer, the theories of 
 the closet, but by public meetings, by regular and systematic combi- 
 nations of its citizens, by the teeming and incessant productions of 
 the press, to bring into qu(;stion, and discuss the legality of the in- 
 stitutions of its neighbour, to get up societies for the express pur- 
 pose of effecting a change in its internal arrangements, to traduce 
 and vilify its laws, to calumniate those who support the institutions 
 under which they live, as monsters and savages, and by inculcating 
 the invalidity of the system, to seduce its citizens from their juss 
 allegiance to the laws of the society, and to endanger the lives and 
 property of all who live, or may be found in its bosom I 
 
 Have not all these things (and they are not stated as strongly as 
 the truth would warrant) a direct tendency, in the language of our 
 author, to create disturbance in another State, to foment discord, to 
 corrupt its citizens, to raise enemies, to sully its reputation, and to 
 deprive it of its natural advantages 1 Have they a tendency only to 
 produce these results, or are they necessarily, to the extent to which 
 they can be made to operate by the actors in these matters, inten- 
 tionally productive of these effects t Have they not already pro- 
 duced some of the bitter fruits, the tendency to do which has placed 
 such doings under the ban of justice, and the condenmation of the 
 enlightened rules and principles of the laws of nations ? 
 
 But if such conduct is inconsistent with the duties, which inde- 
 pendent nations owe to each other, how would the injustice and 
 perfidy of it be aggravated, if we were to suppose that these two 
 nations, with a view to their protection against a common enemy, 
 had entered into a solemn compact of union for their common defence 
 and general welfare, and that each, in entering into this compact, 
 had expressly reserved to itself, and guaranted to the other, the ex- 
 clusive regulation of its own domestic affairs'? What terra could be 
 found severe enough to characterize the conduct of a State under 
 such an agreement, whom we should see violating this fundamental 
 provision, and by illegal interferences in the internal concerns of 
 its co-memher and Confederate, disturbing and destroying the com- 
 mon harmony and peace, the great objects of their association ? 
 
 The abolitionists, in their recent manifesto, have attemoted to 
 sustain tliemselves upon their supposed right, freely to discuss all 
 topics, without limitation, which right they claim as an inheritance 
 from their fathers, and which they mean to hand down (they say) 
 unimpaired to their children. The fiuhers of these worthy gentle- 
 men, never having possessed an estate so large and unlimited as 
 
23 
 
 tkeir children now claim for themselves, could of course never have 
 transmitted the inheritance of which they speak. Unless the clr-ir- 
 acter of the estate which Tappan <ind his associates claim to have 
 inherited from their fathers, dilfers essenllally from tlie inheritance 
 of every other American citizen, some oi" the old land marks n)ust 
 be removed, liberty must degenerate into licentiousness, and the 
 sober principles of good order and government be superseded liy 
 anarchy and confusion. 
 
 I presume no greater latitude will be claimed for the indulgence 
 of speech, oi the freedom of the press, than is conceded tn the en- 
 joyment of other personal rights, equally dear, and ecjually the re- 
 sults of natural liberty. A man, having a large plantation in the 
 country, and no near neighbours about him, might very piopeily 
 and rightfully set up a manufactory of varnish or hartshorn, but lie 
 would scarcely be permitted to set up such an establishment in a 
 populous city, to the annoyance of a v/liole neighhourhood. Here 
 the general right to use one's property as he pleases, is necessarily so 
 far limited, that in that use he shall not offend or impair the rights oj- 
 others. Are not the tongue, the pen and the press subject to the 
 same restriction ? When neighbouring nations have entered into a 
 compact of government, for certain general purposes, being dissimi- 
 UTf- in laws, policy and inr Uutions, and it is understood and agreed 
 that each member of the Confederacy' shall retain its entire power 
 and exclusive control over its own institutions and municipal govern- 
 ment, is not the right of any and every party to that compact, to 
 discuss the propriety or legality of the institutions of its Confederates 
 (if it be supposed to have existed previous to the association) neces- 
 sarily surrendered by the very fact, to say nothing of the express 
 terms of the Confederation I Let us suppose that several individu- 
 als, some of them having none but slaves trained to a sea-faring lite, 
 the others employing none but free labour, should enter into a com- 
 mercial enterprise, and should each agree to fiunish ships and prose- 
 cute voyages on joint account, for their common profit — let us sup- 
 pose that the de|)endence of the parties we have named, upon 
 slaves, for the navigation of their ships, was not only a fact well 
 known to the other parties to the agreement, but that in the articles 
 of co-partnership, the employment Of these slaves in the contem- 
 plated enterprise, was expressly recognised, and the exclusive con- 
 trol over them guaranteed to the owners, would it be consistent 
 with honor, with justice or good faith, if the co-partners in the case 
 supposed, depending upon free labour, should endeavor to weaken the 
 authority of the owners over their slaves, to discuss incessantly the 
 
24 
 
 illes:aiity of the system, and to deprive those who relied upon then}, 
 of tlie powers and means of fulfilhng their obligations'? Would not 
 such efforts be considered as a plain violation of the fundamental 
 principles of the association, and if continued, justify a dissolution 
 of the concern ? 
 
 But let us inquire what the duty of a nation requires of it, in re- 
 lation to its own citizens, when they are guilty of inflicting any injury 
 upon another State, or its citizens, contrary to tiie law of nations — 
 and here we refer again to our authority : 
 
 " But on the other hand, the nation or the sovereign ought not to suffer 
 the citizens to do an injury to the citizens of another State, much less to 
 offend the State itself. And that not only because no sovereign ought to 
 permit those who are under his command to violate the precepts of the law 
 of nations, vt^hich forbids all injuries, but also because nations ought mu- 
 tually to respect each other, to abstain from all otiijuce, from all abuse, 
 from all injury, and, in a word, from every thing which may be of pre- 
 judice to others. If a sovereign, who might keep his subjects within the 
 rules of justice and peace, sutlers them to injure a foreign nation, either in 
 its body or its members, he does no less an injury to that nation, than if 
 he injured them himself. If the offended State keeps the guilty in his 
 power, he may, without difficulty, punish him and oblige him to make 
 satisfaction. If the guilty escapes and returns into his own country, jus- 
 tice may be demanded from his sovereign, and since this last ought not to 
 suffer his subjects to molesr the subjects of otiiers, or do them an injury, 
 much less should he permit them audaciously to offend foreign powers; 
 he ought to oblige the guihy to repair the damage, if that be possible — to 
 inflict on him an exemplary punishment, or, in short, according to the 
 nature of the case and the circumstances attending it, to deliver him up to 
 the offended State, there to receive justice. — VatieVs Law of Nations, pp. 
 222-223. 
 
 The principles here laid down seem to cover the whole case, and 
 imperiously to require from the non-slavo-holding States, an exem- 
 plary punishment of these mischievous men, for their past offences, 
 and that they should be in future restrained, by the sovereign power 
 ot those States, from the perpetration of further injury. Will it be 
 inquired what present existing laws of the States where they live, 
 the abolitionists have violated ? I answer, the same laws witich 
 punish the publication of all papers, which have a tendency to dis- 
 turb the public peace. This is a well settled and conceded princi- 
 ple of law in all the States of this Union, derived from that great 
 fountain of wisdom, the conmion law of England, and which has 
 been made, from time immemorial, to restrain within the limits 
 necessary to the peace of society, the right of discussion. Will it 
 be said that this principle only applies to prevent breaches of the 
 public peace of a particular State, by reflections upon the govern- 
 ment or the citizens of that State ? We can shew most clearly that the 
 principle is not so limited, hut that it extends to publications calcu- 
 fated to disturb the amicable relations «f a State with Foreign Po- 
 
reign Powers. A short chapter is duvoted, by a writer on the Law 
 of Libels to Libels against the Law of iNations. (Holt on Libel, ch. 
 iv. p. 86.) lie says " Tiiat if it bo incuinbent on the Magistrate to 
 restrain all such disorders of speech or writing, as have a tendency 
 to disturb the peace of families and individuals, still more essential 
 is it to repress such excesses, as might eventually lead to eml)roil 
 nations, and thereby bring upon society that greatest of all evils, 
 national war." He adds, " the law of nations is part of the munici- 
 pal law of every State." 
 
 In the case of Peltier (which you, Messrs. Editors* were the first 
 to cite in reference to this subject,) Lord EUenborough said *' That 
 every publication which had a tendenc^^ to promote public mischief, 
 whether by causing irritation in the minds of the subjects of this 
 realm, that may induce them to commit a breach of the public peace, 
 or whether it may be more public or specific, and extending to the 
 morals, the religion, or magistracy of the country, these were all 
 cases of libel. But more particularly (his Lordship added) as in the 
 present case, by defaming the persons and characters of magistrates, 
 and others in high and eminent situations of power and dignity in 
 other countries, inconsistent with amity and friendship, expressed 
 in such terms, and such a manner, as to interrupt the friendly rela- 
 tions between the two countries. Every such publication is what 
 the law calls a libel." 
 
 If among independent nations, unconnected by the strong ties of 
 affinity, any publications calculated to provoke hostility or create dis- 
 turbance between them, are punishable as libels, how much more 
 obnoxious to punishment must such publications be, in States so 
 intimately connected as those of the Union 1 
 
 If the tendency to produce national hostility and war among inde- 
 pendent nations, is considered as a sufficient ground for the suppres- 
 sion or punishment of publications, calculated to bring about so in- 
 auspicious a result, how much more reprehensible and deserving of 
 punishment, must be all such discussions and appeals, as are calcu- 
 tated to disturb the harmony, if not inevitably to destroy the exis- 
 tence of our glorious Union t 
 
 If improper reflections upon the conduct of the eminent men and 
 magistrates of a foreign country, are thought deserving of punishment 
 upon the great principles of the law of nations, how nnich more deep- 
 ly guilty must those be, how much severer should be their punish- 
 ment, who make the instiiutiuns of a sister State the constant enb- 
 
 ^ Editors of the Courier. 
 4 
 
26 
 
 jecl of reproach and calumny; wJio designate its citizens as robbers 
 and savages ; and zoho do all that in them lies, to alienate ichoh 
 communities from their attachment and devotion to our common 
 government 1 
 
 Will it be said, that the principles we contend for are indeed ap- 
 plirnhle lo the conduct of independent nations to each other, but do 
 not apply in their full force to States confederated together like ours? 
 What is this but to admit, th^t the Union is worse than useless te 
 tlie slave-holding States, and to afford to them the strongest argu- 
 ment for its dissolution? If their most essential rights are to receive 
 no security from the national guarantee, but in violation of its most 
 express and solemn sanctions, are to be made the subjects of constant 
 inierference and visionary experiment, on the part of the non-slave- 
 holding States and its citizens, are not the slave-holding States war- 
 ranted, by every principle of justice and sell preservation, in cutting 
 asunder the gordian knot which only binds them for destruction 1 
 
 We well know, that except upon the most solemn and explicit 
 understanding, iiiat the system of slavery, as it existed in each slave- 
 holii'aig State at the adoption of the Constitution, was left exclusive- 
 ly to tlse management of each and every such Slate for itself, with- 
 oai tlie inteiference of others, the present Union of the States would 
 have been utterly impracticable. Is it not equally evident, that 
 unless this, great principle be faithfully observed, the days of our 
 Uiiion are already numbered; that th.e blood of the dying martyr, 
 the wisdom of the phii)sopher and the sage, the cheering hope ot the 
 patriot and the philanthropist, will have raised but a momentary 
 glrvju of comfort and of glory, to cheat an admiring world, and to 
 plunge us in more irremediable darkness, misery and death. 
 
 Wo, T. 
 
 We have enderivoured to shew, at some length, (with what success 
 others must determine) the illegality of the schemes and operations 
 of ihe abolitionists. We have shewn (we think) most conclusively, 
 that they involve a wanton attack upon the rights and the interests of 
 tlie Southern States — that they are a plain and palpable violation of 
 \\w law of nations, and of the Constitution of the United States — 
 thiJt those abolitionists who can be proved to have sent into or circu- 
 lated witliin the slave-holding States, their seditious pamphlets, are 
 liable to punishment under tlie laws of those States ; and that, look- 
 ing lo tlie lih(dlous c'l.iracter of many of ther publications, they are 
 obnoxious to punishment as libellers, upon the principles of thfc com- 
 
27 
 
 uion I;i\v, ill the States id wliicli llicy liave printed and liist triven 
 them [juhhcity. 
 
 We have atfirraed, and by argument and autliority, undertaken to 
 prove that it is the duty ot tliose Slates, where abolition eflorts ar(^ 
 makinji, upon the principles of the law of nations, and peculiarly as 
 members of this Confederacy under the Constitution of the United 
 •States, to suppress, by law, these unauthorized attacks upon the 
 rij^hts of the slave-holding States, these pregnant sources of danger 
 to the harmony, if not to the existence of the Union. 
 
 W^ere these attacks upon the just rights of the Sou'h occasional||^ 
 onlv, or fiiw ; were the persons engaged in them sniali in number, 
 here and there one, unconnected with each other in any j^eneral and 
 concerted plan of operations, the enforcement of the existing laws 
 against them might perlia[)s be found adequate to the suppression of 
 the evil ; but when, on the contrary, we see societies formed and 
 forming throughout the Northern States, for the express purpose of 
 effecting the immediate abolition of slavery ; when we see the un- 
 blushing effrontery with which their illegal purposes are avowed ; 
 when we see the untiring efforts which are making to enlist the whole 
 Northern community in the support of their principles and the fur- 
 therance of their designs ; when we see the Southern States thrf.'at- 
 ened with an increasing deluge of mischief from this quarter, and 
 the safety and integrity of the Union put in immineni jeopardy, wp 
 are driven to the conclusion, that more vigorous measures and a se- 
 verer legislation are wanting, to meet the emergency, than the pre- 
 sent remedies afford. 
 
 That the noa-slave-holding States are bound, upon every princi- 
 ple of justice and good faith, to restrain their citizens from invasions 
 of the rights, or interference in the domestic jiolicy of the Southern 
 States, is a clear deduction from the principles of the law of nations, 
 to which we have already referred. In order, however, to strength- 
 en our views on this subject, (although we may be chniged with 
 unnecessary repetition) we cannot avoid introducing in tlus connex- 
 ion, a passage from our favorite author, so apposite to the circum- 
 stances oi the times, that it would almost seeui to have been writteik 
 for the occasion : 
 
 I' Bat on the other hand, the nation or sovereign oufjht not to suffer the 
 citizens to do an injury U)the subjects of liuothcr State, much less to ..tlend 
 the State itself; and that not only because no sosereign ought to [)erniir 
 those who are uudcr liis cominaud, to violate the {)rece]its of the law of 
 nations, which forbids all injuries ; but also, because uaiions ought nm- 
 tually to respect each other, to abstain from all oljence, from all abase, 
 from all injury, and in a word, from any thing that may be of prejudice 
 to others. K a Suvercigo, who might keei> his subjectj within the rules 
 
28 
 
 of justice and peace, suffers them to injure a foreign nation, either in H» 
 body or its members, he does no less an injury to^hat nation, than if he 
 mjured them himself. In short, the safety of the State and that of hu- 
 man society, requires this attention from every sovereign."— VatteVs Law 
 oj jSahons, p. 222. 
 
 W hen we see that as between independent nations, unconnected by 
 any other relations than such as subsist between all independent 
 governments, every society is bound upon the acknowledged prin- 
 ciples of the law of nations, " not to sufier its citizens to do an inju- 
 ry to the subjects of another state, much less to permit them to 
 (jgend the state itself;" when we reflect upon the nature of our go- 
 vernment, that though the States of the Union are associated togeth- 
 er, for certain general purposes, yet that in all matters of internal 
 policy, they are independent of each other, and that each has a right 
 to enjoy, undisturbed, its own peculiar laws and institutions, however 
 variant they may be from those of its Confederates ; when we recur 
 to the fact, that the present Union of the States was formed upon 
 this fundamental basis, and that, except upan this foundation, it 
 would have been, and must continue to be, impracticable ; when we 
 advert to the consideration that Slavery existed in many of the States 
 long anterior to the Constitution, and at the time of its adoption, 
 and that, in that solemn compact of Union between the States, the 
 existence and legality of the system was not only recognized, but 
 with the other sovereign rights of the States, reserved to each and 
 guaranteed by all — we can scarcely suffer ourselves to doubt for a 
 moment, that the non-slave-holding States, in so plain a case, bound 
 by such high and solemn principles of justice and good faith, urged 
 by so many, and such imperious considerations of policy and of du- 
 ty, will promptly and effectually restrain, by such measures as they 
 may deem adequate to the purpose, these ebullitions of a wild and 
 reckless fanaticism — these lawless and unblushing efforts to break 
 down the safe-guards of the Constitution — to prostrate at the foot of 
 a blind enthusiasm, for theories and abstractions, the most sacred and 
 inviolable rights, and trampling upon the national faith, to lead the 
 march of anarchy and tumult into the bosom of the Repubhc. We 
 call upon them to perform this high and solemn duty, not less due to 
 themselves than to others. We call upon them to rescue the nation- 
 al honor and redeem their plighted faith. 
 
 In the names of our common ancestors, who shed their blood at 
 Bunker's Hill and Fort Moultrie, at Saratoga and the Eutaws, by the 
 glorious names which have adorned the pages of our common history, 
 and shed lustre and renown upon our father land, by our Washing- 
 ton and PiNCKNKt's, by our Hancock and our Adams', by onV 
 
29 
 
 Lauhens' and our Huti, edges, wo invoke them lo save tlie Consti- 
 tution, and avert from our labored land tlie evils winch surround, 
 and the dangers which threaten to destroy us. Nor (I am assured) 
 will the appeal be in vain. When were the American people ad- 
 dressed in the voice of reason, that they did not listen, or a claim 
 upon their justice preferred without success 1 When has the Con- 
 stitution been in dai.ger, that they have not come to its rescue, or 
 the calls of duty or of patriotisnj fallen upon unwilling ears ? When 
 has the spirit of '76 been invoked, that it has not come mantling 
 upon every breeze, from the sea-board to the mountains, proclaiming 
 in the voice that nerved our fathers' arms in the olden times, the 
 Union must be presereed. 
 
ABBENDA. 
 
 The following extracts from the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this 
 State, in the case of the State against Anderson, decided in 1833, and 
 reported in Hill's Rep. 348, are given as containing strong, if not con- 
 clusive authority in support of some of the views taken in the preced- 
 ing numbers. 
 
 " Regarding the relations between Georgia and South-Carolina, 
 as that of sovereign, independent States, bound together only by the 
 common ties and obligations which the laws of Nations impose, most 
 of the writers agree that it was lawful to arrest the prisoner here for 
 an offence coaimitled in Georgia. Widely scattered and inconsis- 
 tent as are the pursuits and interests of the different Nations of the 
 earth, there is, in reason and morality, a common bond which uiiites 
 the whole human family. ♦*•••# 
 
 Vattel says, that a sovereign ought not to suffer his subjects to of- 
 fend against the law of another Stale, and that it is his duty to 
 oblige the guilty person to repair the wrong he has done, to inflict on 
 him exemplary punishment, or if the circumstances required, to de- 
 liver him up to the injured State, and if this be true with respect to 
 his own subjects, how much stronger does it hold in relation to the 
 subjects of the offended State who flee from justice, and take refuge 
 in his dominions. 
 
 " A question has been raised, whether the Constitution of the 
 United States and the Act of Congress of 1793, have not as be- 
 tween the co-States, superseded and abrogated the Laws of Na- 
 tions ; and whether a fugitive from justice, from one State, can be 
 lawfully arrested in another, without demand having been first made 
 by the Executive of the State in which he is found. 
 
 "In the consideration of this question, it is not my purpose to enter 
 into the exciting and much contested political question as to the na- 
 ture, objects and extent of the relative obligations, which the Con- 
 stitution imposes on the several States, composing the Union. For 
 
31 
 
 tlie purpose oi" this rnso, it is wholly immaterial wliotlicr thr\ arc re- 
 garded as entirely sovereign and independent or consolidated into 
 one Government, or as occuityinc; iiiiy point between these cxtnMiies; 
 provided the ohligations which tlK^ir bond of Union imposes, do not 
 enjoin upon them to do each other all the evil they can. 
 
 " If they stand in the relation of sovereign and independent States, 
 then the laws of nations apply and Justify the arrest, and must pre- 
 vail, unless controlled by the provisions of the Constitution. Whe- 
 ther we rei^ard the causes which gave rise to the Fedeial Constitu- 
 tion, its general tenor and import, its particular provisions, it is obvi- 
 ous thil whatever may have been the relations existing between the 
 States before, it was never intended to separate them more widely 
 than they would have been, as independent States. On the con- 
 trary, its whole history shews that the object was, in the language of 
 the Preamble, " to form a more perfect union, establish justice, &c." 
 Between independent nations, war, the ultima ratio is the usual 
 means of enforcing the obligations of the law of nations ; and we 
 have before seen, that harbouring fugitives from justice, is just cause 
 of complaint by one nation or government against another. It was 
 necessary to guard against this evil, and in this spirit this provision 
 of the Constitution before referred to, and the Act of ('ongress of 
 1793, were doubtless framed — not with the intention of abrogating 
 the laws of nations, but in this respect and in this extent, to make 
 them imperative on the States and to supersede the necessity of re- 
 sorting to the sword. In most cases the States are separated 
 from each other by an imaginary line, and if passinjr one o< these, 
 the traitor or felon should find a sanctuary where no hand dare touch 
 liim which was not armed with executive authority, an age spent in 
 pursuit can scarcely be regarded as a time within which it would 
 reasonably be expected an ofl'ender could be brought to justice. 
 There is certainly no express provision in * the Constitution, which 
 renders this formula imperative, nor coidd it ever have been intend- 
 ed by the framers ot that instrument, to confer siich an immunity 
 on oflenders agaiubl [)ublic justice."