Letter
to the Daily Missouri Republican,
August 4, 1860
Nick
Sacco is a Park Ranger at the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site outside
St. Louis. He operates a blog called Exploring
the Past, which I occasionally read. One entry from early May, 2017, referenced this
letter from a Missouri slaveholder to the Daily Missouri Republican
which, despite its name, was the leading Democratic paper in Missouri
at the time. Nick graciously sent me scanned images of the
complete letter so I could put it on this website.
A
Word to the Wise
In
a spirit of modesty, but of earnestness and sincerity, I desire to say
a few words to my brother slaveholders of Missouri concerning the
issues of the approaching Gubernatorial and Presidential elections.
No one of us, I hope, is so "clean daft" that he desires to beat
out his own brains. Yet there is a chance for us to do worse than
this in the coming contest, and not only ruin ourselves, but entail
misery upon those who follow us. But how can this
be done? Look for a moment at the condition of the
country, and it will be apparent to the dullest comprehension.
Three parties are contending for supremacy and rule in the
American Republic. One,
headed by Seward, Lincoln, and others of that class, seek for
Congressional intervention to drive slavery out of all the territorial
possessions of the Confederacy, and ultimately from the States
themselves. Another party, led by Yancey, Slidell & Co.,
invoke the same intervention to force slavery into the Territories,
whether the people want it or not. The third, and great
conservative and true Democratic party of the Union, whose
representative head is Stephen A. Douglas, desire, in this matter as in
all others, to leave the people to regulate their domestic affairs as
may best suit their interests. This last principle is as certain
to prevail as that there is progress in human liberty. Call it by
all the odious names you please, it will make no difference. The
principle is in the hearts of the people, and they will cherish it as
fondly and defend it as fiercely, as they did the right to war against
tyrants. "Whosoever fails upon this stone shall be broken, but
woe unto him upon whom it falls, for it shall grind him to powder."
There
is another party, if it can be called one, without platform or clearly
defined principles, which, chameleon like, takes its color from the
light in which it is seen, and is ready to conform itself to the local
sentiment of either North or South. In the coming contest it will
occupy the same position, and exercise the same power as in 1856.
Then it carried the vote of one State, and it may possibly
do the same thing again. If this party could by any
possibility succeed, its future would be uncertain, for no one can
predict the course that would be taken by its leaders. Under
these circumstances, the patriot must look for hope amongst the three
parties first named. Shall we look for protection
and security to our interests in the ascendency of Black Republicanism?
When the lamb is nursed and fondled by the she wolf, we may look
to such a source for the defense of our rights. Shall
we trust to the opposing faction, under the lead of avowed
disunionists, with BRECKINRIDGE for their agent?
If their motives were not as transparent as “thin air,”
and their designs as treasonous as those of Arnold or Burr, it would be
worth while to show that their principles are directly at war with the
rights of the people, the doctrines of Democracy, the hopes of human
progress. The leaders of this faction, in their
blind and vaulting ambition, seek for nothing but their personal
aggrandizement in the disruption of the American Union. It
needs no labored argument to prove this assertion. Read their
letters and papers, as full of arrant treason as an egg is of meat;
listen to their concerted movements to "precipitate a revolution," and
then ask yourselves if you are ready to surrender your dearest
interests to the keeping of such men. Mark another fact:
They do not expect to succeed by the election of their own candidate,
but by creating a diversion sufficient to insure the election of LINCOLN,
thus gaining what they think will be a sufficient pretext to "fire the
Southern heart," and hasten civil war and disunion. Slaveholders
of Missouri, are you quite ready for this crisis? Are you ready
to follow the lead of a few disaffected politicians and time-serving
office holders, to your own inevitable destruction? Suppose they
succeed in their traitorous scheme, and induce a half dozen of the
cotton States to revolt, are you prepared to go with them? Are
you willing to become the advance guard of the Gulf States, and make
Missouri the battle ground of niggerdom for the next five or ten years?
Are you willing to make the great central States of the
American Republic---the fairest country in Christendom---the scene of
intestine broil and tumult, ending in the voluntary exile of every
slaveholder in the commonwealth? Are you willing to
fight the battles of these gentlemen Secessionists, receive all the
wounds, suffer all the losses, and pay all the expenses, while they
remain in quiet, far away from the scene of mischief and slaughter[?].
If you wish to “precipitate the revolution,” and hasten
this “good time,” I see no better way to accomplish the object than by
supporting the bolters’ ticket, either State or national. If
you wish to accomplish the Black Republican prophecy, and make Missouri
a free State in the next five years, you cannot do it better than by
voting for Hancock Jackson[*] and John C. Breckenridge. Don't you
see
how these Black Republicans egg you on by shouting hurra for the
Secession candidates, and at the same time laugh in their sleeves, and
hold jubilees to exult over our folly? But it is not too late to
remedy this matter, and on next Monday, I trust and believe that every
slaveholder, who desires to see Missouri “possess her soul in
patience,” and her slaves in peace for generations to come, will vote
against every candidate who is connected, directly or indirectly with
the disunion propagandists of the South.
SLAVEHOLDER
*
Hancock Lee Jackson was the Southern Democratic candidate for
Governor
of Missouri in 1860. He lost to Claiborne Fox Jackson. The
fact that
they have the same last name is confusing, and I appreciate Nick
Sacco
for clarifying it for me.
|
Back to Causes of the Civil War (Main page) |
Back to Editorial Commentary |
|
Source: Scanned image of archived newspaper. |
Date added to website: May 31, 2017. |