|
|
|
Republic of
Georgia.
Ordinance of Secession,
Passed Jan'ry 19, 1861.
With the Names of the Signers.
An Ordinance to dissolve the Union between the State of Georgia and other
States united with her under a compact of government, entitled "The
Constitution of the United States of America:
We, the people of the State of Georgia, in Convention assembled, do
declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained,that the
ordinance adopted by the people of the State of Georgia, in Convention on
the Second Day of January in the Year of Our Lord Seventeen Hundred and
Eight-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was
assented to, ratified, and adopted; and also, all acts, and parts of acts,
of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying and adopting amendments
of the said Constitution, are hereby Repealed, Rescinded, and Abrogated.
"We do further Declare and Ordain, that the Union now subsisting between
the State of Georgia and other States, under the name of the United States
of America, Is Hereby Dissolved, and that the State of Georgia is in full
possession and exercise of all those rights of Sovereignty which belong
and appertain to a Free and Independent State."
George W. Crawford, of Richmond, President
A Declaration of the Causes
which Impel the State of
Georgia to Secede from the Federal Union.
[from the Official Records, Ser IV, vol 1, pp81-85.]
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the
Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates
and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last
ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our
non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of
African
slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our
domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with
their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that
property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have
striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of
the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued
with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and
excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the
Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil
war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national
traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument
would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults,
injuries, and dangers. Recent
events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity
of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of
all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the
rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large
majority committed the
Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia,
after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have
declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief
history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the
political organization into whose
hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will
fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party
of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and
organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery
party. While it attracts to
itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political
heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of
commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste
and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its
mission and its purpose. By
anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was
the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the
African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that
slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding
States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as
now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct
reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in
the United States for more than half a century after the
Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even
if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any
portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted
either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The
material prosperity of
the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the
South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating,
commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit
and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the
owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their
own business
(which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the
Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign
shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress
granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly
of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without
diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust
advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their
business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in
throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the
maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays
above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses
interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes,
have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the
reduction in
postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000
annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal
deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle
early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special
favors. This
interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding
States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and
its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and
miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather
than upon
general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the
opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their
business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile
legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their
fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the
debt incurred in our war for
independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years
enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But
when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government
protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the
principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed
protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire
business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided
sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties,
and economy in public
expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the
Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its
reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The
anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success.
An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for
support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the
Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore
determined upon. Time and
issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph.
The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general
among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed
only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was
before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with
Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the
question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape
to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began.
Northern anti-slavery men of all parties
asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional
legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power
to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great
moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our
money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the
Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These
propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public
danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the
acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and,
therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.
The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party
from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the
Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the
Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country
northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That
ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of
Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must
stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United
States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great
Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by
treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely
exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions
the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement
of
all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither
with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally
protected by public authority in their persons and property until the
inhabitants became sufficiently
numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the
duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon
equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution
they might adopt for themselves.
Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and
progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these
new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths
into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to
overturn
this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri
should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery
within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted
struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and
position led to the adoption
of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery
in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of
36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The
venerable Madison at the
time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned
the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would
result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The
North demanded the
application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the
territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain
then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to
appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to
be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and
insulting than the reason with
which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit,
restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The
South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of
prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection
with a series of questions
affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of
prohibitory legislation.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the
advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this
result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite
all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future
political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the
party to whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They
raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the
Presidential contest again in 1860 and
succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere,
the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional
guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and
applauded by its followers.
With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips
the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them
as our rulers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the
cardinal principle of this
organization.
For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls
of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of
justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in
their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication
of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the
total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of
our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete
refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or
proper to the execution of any other power in relation to
the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people
of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the
unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we
offer the judgment of the
Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our
country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have
never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us
that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.
The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as
might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are
content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons
charged with crimes
in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of
the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried
in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear
difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty
years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to
deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our
confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals
who seek to deprive us of this property or who use
it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction
than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the
Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.
A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender
fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our
main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them
it is historically true that
we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the
Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this
important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the
local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The
non-slave-holding States
generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and
imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution
and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then
passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty
by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered
absolutely indispensable
for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with
ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme
Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with
the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin),
sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands
to-day a dead letter for all
practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We
have their covenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the
unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the
mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met
with fraud, with
force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat
him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten
by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding
the highest public employment in these States, and supported by
legislation in conflict with
the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary
principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen
cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany
him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous
punishments. It is
difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by
the fraternity of such brethren.
The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its
citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and
security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or
to lessen the security, or to
disturb the tranquility of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely
gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of
nations. These are sound and just principles which have received the
approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are
wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal
Government is impotent to
maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in
the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our
institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They
have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes.
Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of
the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same
men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance
led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those
of the murderers and incendiaries who
escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our
Northern confederates.
These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.
Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party,
who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal
Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their
treachery; we know
the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest
obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The
people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this
contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they
have never hitherto sought to
establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient
right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution.
But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and
therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North
offers us. Why?
Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed
$3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put
it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of
the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to
thieves
and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in
spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed
purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of
our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our
children, and the desolation of our
homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the
powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States,
and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality,
security, and tranquility.
[Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861]
|
|
