live under the
protec^n. of a Const^n. & yet _refuse_ to submit to its _stipulations_.
True enough, as you say, the North wish _not_ to have the Negroes set
free _in their midst_, to overrun and disturb them--this they declare
by their actions, for they take no care for or interest in the poor
free (almost) brutes in their midst;--yet how soon will they be ready
to _resist_ you most violently should you attempt to take even one of
them back, from his then wretched abode, to his former happier place in
the service of a kind Master? "Oh! consistency, thou art a jewel!" This
then has been _one_ of the _two great causes_ of the present troubles.
The other--the denial of equal rights in the Territories--is still a
_greater_, because it involves a principle; the former was more a
matter of personal interest. The territories being purchased in common,
were the com. pos. of North and South. Each had a Const^l right to
emigrate thither _with their property_ & demand for it the protection
_afforded by_ the Const^n. It became, in course of time, a matter of
dispute whether the South could take their slaves there as _property_.
(As a matter of course this arose from _jealousy_--the N. having no
such prop, to take.) This great quest. was decided, however, by the
_Chief Justice_ in the highest Tribunal in the world, in favor of the
South; viz. that _slaves were property_. I refer to the "Dred Scott"
Case. This should have been sufficient, as it came from the highest
authority in the Gov^t. But some parties and people are _never
satisfied_. Full in the face of this high official the Repub^n Party
declare by their _Platform orators, & Press_, that slavery shall never
enter another foot of territory. Now if the South admit this principle
they acknowledge their inferiority to the North--an act that, even in
the eyes of the North, would not comport with their dignity & honor as
an independent & free people. The South being thus _oppressed_ then I
assert they have a right (not to secede, for no such right exists in my
conception, as it would be an element _subversive_ of any, & especially
of a Repub^ln gov.,) _to revolt_--a right inherent in & beyond the
control of all earthly govern^ts. Yes I coincide with the great Lord
Chatham when he says that "_Rebellion_ against _oppression_ is
_obedience_ to _God_." Our Ancestors rebelled against the tyranny of
British usurpation, & the Texans revolted against a like despotism
exercised by a Mexican