HIB0338 Vybrané problémy z dějin americké občanské války: Předválečný vývoj USA

Dear Sir

Although it is some time since I have seen or heard from you, except through the Columns of the Statesmen, I assume the privilege belonging to an old brothers soldier in the democratic cause of writing you. In the confusion and derangement of parties [...] there have been and still are alienations and disagreement, but in the main the great body of the [democratic] party are well disposed. [...].

In the efforts that have been made, and are still making to establish a new test in the democratic creed, which certain of our friends at the South imperiously exort and others of our friends in the north obsequiously adopt, I have not sympathized. Indeed I cannot without violence to my convictions and an abandonment of my political principles. If the Fugitive Slave law is not an assumption of power on the part of the central government, the alien and sedition laws were not, and the principle embodied in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 and ’99 [protesty proti federálním zákonům o pobuřování a cizincích, vyjadřovaly také právo jednotlivých států na protest a anulování v případě překročení pravomocí Kongresem] are equally applicable to the law of 1850. There is no grant of power to congress in either case, and the last named act is the worst unwarrantable violation of the rights and sover[e]ignty of the States we have ever witnessed. The South, in my opinion, are committing a fatal error in urging and insisting on this law. [...]

But the great interest involved has made our Southern friends oblivious to the fundamental doctrines of the party and the teachings of Jefferson, and in their desire to get their runaways, they forget or are unmindful of constitutional rights & restrictions. Not only this departure from the faith on primitive principles, it has I fear had a corrupting tendency in other respects. In no other way can I account for the indifference manifested respecting the stupendous frauds and improper practices involving high official delinquents.

The Fugitive Slave law has done more to break down a correct public opinion and sweep away the distinctions of party through the North than any thing that has occurred in my day. What, I often ask my friends who are striving with the Whigs to maintain “the Compromise”, are the distinctions between the democrats and the whigs, if this is your test? You have different organizations it is true, but wherein do your principles differ? The Whigs can without inconsistency support this law, because they do not hold to a strict construction of the Constitution – they are not believers in the rights & sover[e]ignty of the States, but are advocates of a strong, over shadowing central government. Supposing the State of Ohio were to enact a law in conformity with their constitutional obligations for the rendition of fugitives – requiring their own officers to arrest, try & surrender them. Does any one question her right or authority to do so? No one can. If however the State can do this, the general government cannot, for it is either a granted or a reserved power. The power is not granted to congress and is consequently reserved.

While these are frankly my views, I have not deemed it wise or expedient to break with my party friends who differ with me, nor have I thought it necessary to unite myself with other organizations. The test I do not recognize, and I trust it will never be embodied in any national resolutions. If, from motives of expediency our friends should, some of them, choose to identify themselves with “the compromise” they may reconcile it with themselves to do so – I from principle cannot. [...].