Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1.

1 The contemplation of disunion, as an emollient for irritated State pride, had been a habit of thought in Virginia and the more Southern Slave-labor States from the beginning of the Government. Whenever the imperious will of a certain class of politicians in those States was offended by a public policy opposed to its wishes, they were in the habit of speaking of the dissolution of the Union as their remedy for the provocation. They threatened to dissolve the Union in 1795, if Jay's Treaty with Great Britain should be ratified by the United States Senate; and the famous Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, in which the doctrine of State Supremacy was broadly inculcated, familiarized the popular mind with the idea that the National Government was only the agent of the States, and might be dismissed by them at any time.

The more concrete and perfect form of these sentiments, embodied in deliberate intentions, was exhibited by John C. Calhoun, as we have observed (note 2, page 41), in 1812. Disloyalty was strongly manifested during the discussions of the Slavery question before the adoption of the Missouri Compromise, in 1820. After the Tariff Act, so obnoxious to the Cotton-growers, became a law, in 1828, the dissolution of the Union was loudly talked of by the politicians of the Calhoun school. “The memorable scenes of our Revolution have again to be acted over,” said the Milledgeville (Georgia) Journal; and the citizens of St. John's Parish, in South Carolina, said, in Convention:--“We have sworn that Congress shall, at our demand, repeal the tariff. If she does not, our State Legislature will dissolve our connection with the Union, and we will take our stand among the nations; and it behooves every true Carolinian ‘ to stand by his arms,’ and to keep the halls of our Legislature pure from foreign intruders.”

When, in the autumn of 1832, the famous Nullification Ordinance was passed by the South Carolina Convention, so certain were the mad politicians that composed it of positive success, that they caused a medal to be struck with this inscription:--“John C. Calhoun, first President of the Southern Confederacy!” Their wicked scheme failed, and Calhoun and his followers went deliberately at work to excite the bitterest sectional strife, by the publication, in the name of Duff Green, as editor and proprietor, of the United States Telegraph, at Washington City. At about the same time (1836), a novel was written by Beverly Tucker, of Virginia, called The Partisan Leader, in which the doctrine of State Supremacy and the most insidious sectionalism were inculcated in the seductive form of a tale, calculated, as it was intended, to corrupt the patriotism of the Southern people, and prepare them for revolution. This was printed by Duff Green, the manager of Calhoun's organ, and widely circulated in the South.

Finally, “Southern rights Associations” were formed, having for their object the dissolution of the Union. Concerning this movement, Muscoe R. H. Garnett, who was a Member of Congress from Virginia when the late civil war broke out, wrote to Wm. H. Trescot (afterward Assistant Secretary of State under Mr. Buchanan), in May, 1851, when great preparations were made by the oligarchy for a revolt, saying:--“I would be especially glad to be in Charleston next week, and witness your Convention of delegates from the Southern Rights Associations. The condition of things in your State deeply interests me; her wise foresight and manly independence have placed her at the head of the South, to whom alone true-hearted men can look with any hope or pleasure. Momentous are the consequences which depend upon your action.” Garnett mourned over the action of Virginia, in hesitating to go with the revolution. “I do not believe,” he said, “that the course of the Legislature is a fair expression of the popular feeling. In the east, at least, the great majority believe in the right of secession, and feel the deepest sympathy with Carolina in opposition to measures which they regard as she does. But the west-Western Virginia--here is the rub! Only sixty thousand slaves to four hundred and ninety-four thousand whites! When I consider this fact, and the kind of argument which we have heard in this body, I cannot but regard with the greatest fear the question, whether Virginia would assist Carolina in such an issue. I must acknowledge, my dear Sir, that I look to the future with almost as much apprehension as hope. You will object to the term Democrat. Democracy, in its original philosophical sense, is indeed incompatible with Slavery, and the whole system of Southern society. Yet, if we look back, what change will you find made in any of our State Constitutions, or in our legislation, in its general course, for the last fifty years, which was not in the direction of Democracy? Do not its principles and theories become daily more fixed in our practice?--I had almost said, in the epinions of our people, did I not remember with pleasure the great improvement of opinion in regard to the abstract question of Slavery. And if such is the case, what have we to hope for the future? I do not hesitate to say, that if the question is raised between Carolina and the Federal Government, and the latter prevails, the last hope of Republican Government, and, I fear, of Southern civilization, is gone. Russia will then be a better Government than ours.”

See pages 92 and 93 of this volume.