our side. As parties were not formed on this difference CH. XVII. of opinion then, why should they be now? The same difference would, of course, exist in the supposed case of religion. When parties, or combinations of men, therefore, so form themselves, must it not be assumed to arise not from reason or any sense of justice, but from fanaticism? The motive can spring from no other source, and when men come under the influence of fanaticism, there is no telling where their impulses or passions may drive them. This is what creates our discontent and apprehension... Conciliation and harmony, in my judgment, can never be established by force. Nor can the Union, under the Constitution, be maintained by force. The Union was formed by the consent of Independent Sovereign States. Ultimate sovereignty still resides with them separately, which can be resumed, and will be, if their safety, tranquillity, and security in their judgment require it. Under our system, as I view it, there is no rightful power in the general Government to coerce a State in case any one of them should throw herself upon her reserved rights, and resume the full exercise of her sovereign powers. Force may perpetuate a Union - that depends upon the contingencies of war. But such a Union would not be the Union of the Constitution: it would be nothing short of a consolidated despotism.

Mr. Lincoln could not, of course, enter upon a further discussion of the topics raised, and made no reply to Mr. Stephens's letter. The correspondence is noteworthy as showing how both writers agreed upon the actual and underlying cause of the political crisis- namely, that the South believed slavery to be right and ought to be extended, while the North believed it was wrong and ought to be restricted. It was a conflict of opinion. Such conflicts have come in all times, in all nations, and under all forms of government. But, admitting the existence of such a conflict of opinion, the legitimate inquiry arises, Was it a proper cause of war? VOL. III.-18

Stephens, "War Between the States," Vol. II., pp. 267-70.

CH. XVII.

Cleveland,

p. 696.

History must answer this question unhesitatingly and emphatically in the negative. In ages happily past, the anger of a king, the caprice of a mistress, or the ambition of a minister has often deluged a nation in blood. But in our day the conscience of civilization demands that the sword shall only defend the life of governments, and the life, liberty, and property of their subjects. It has ordained that written constitutions shall decide claims of rulers and rights of citizens. Casuistry the most adroit could not prove the right of the free States to expel the slave States for believing the institution of slavery to be a substantial blessing; equally absurd was the doctrine that the slave States had a right to destroy the Union by secession because the free States thought slavery a moral, social, and political evil. Upon this question, as upon all others, public opinion was the arbiter appointed by the Constitution and laws. Upon this question the lawful and constitutional verdict had been pronounced by the election of Lincoln; and the proper duty of the South under the circumstances had been admirably stated by Mr. Stephens himself in his Milledgeville speech: "In my judgment the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause for any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country."

Mr. Stephens's letter ignored the existence of the pro-slavery sentiment in the South,which had for six years been united and unceasing in party affiliation and action, and that this party action had wrought

the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in violation CH. XVII. of plighted political faith and generous comity between sections. Moreover that antislavery opinions had not only been under ban of public sentiment there, but had notoriously for years been visited with mob violence, and been made the subject of prohibitory penal statutes. The experiment of a sentimental union dreamed of by Stephens and others had been fully tried in the compromise of 1850, and first and flagrantly violated by the South herself, against every appeal and protest.

CH. XVIII.

1860.

but timid men, alarmed by the signs of disunion, who besought him to make some public statement to quiet the South. Requests of this character were not confined to one party, but came from all; the more considerable number being from Republicans and from Southern unionists or followers of Bell and Everett. The great bulk of these letters was, of course, never answered; but occasionally one was received from a man of such standing and influence that to ignore it would not only seem ungracious, but might subject the President-elect to more serious misrepresentation than it had already been his lot to endure. To show both a prominent phase of current politics and his manner of dealing with it, we print several replies of this class.

Thus, for instance, he wrote, confidentially, to Mr. William S. Speer, a citizen of Tennessee, under date of October 23:

I appreciate your motive when you suggest the propriety of my writing for the public something disclaiming all intention to interfere with slaves or slavery in the States; but in my judgment it would do no good. I