Origin Of The Late War is a paper written by Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter. Below is a paraphrashed overview of this document.
He states, "The civil war, which raged in the United States of America, has been very generally attributed to the abolition of slavery as its cause. When we consider how deeply the institutions of southern society and the operations of southern industry were founded in slavery, we must admit that this was cause enough to have produced such a result."
However, he then states, "But, a close study of the history of the times will bring us to the conclusion that it was the fear of a mischief far more extensive and deeper, than mere abolitionism, which drove the South."
Hunter argues, "When this Union was originally formed, the United States embraced too many degrees of latitude and longitude, and too many varieties of climate and production, to make it practicable to establish and administer justly one common government. It was obvious enough that each separate society should be entrusted with the management of its own peculiar interests, and that the united government should take charge only of those interests which were common and general. To enforce this necessary distinction, it was provided that all powers, not specially granted to the united government, should be reserved to the people and the States. Those who wielded the powers thus granted became interested to remove these limitations as far as possible, whilst the minority, who belonged to the governed rather than the governing party, early learned to regard these limitations as the best and surest defences against the abuses and oppressions of a despotic majority. A tendency soon became manifest in the non - slaveholding portion of the union to constitute themselves into that governing party."
Hunter adds, "The northwestern ordinance, to which the old Virginia fathers were driven by their abhorrence of slavery, made the predominance of the non slaveholding section irresistible. The abolition of the slave trade, left the growing superiority of that section not even doubtful. But the acquisition of Louisiana made another order of growth in political power possible. This kindled a violent opposition in some portions of the non - slaveholding section. In New England there sprung up audible threats of separation."
Hunter goes on, "When it became obvious that the only protection of the rights of the minority against the encroachments of the majority was to be found in the limitations upon the power of the governing party, a death struggle arose between the two parties over the constitutional restraints upon this power. The struggle between the two parties commenced at the beginning. These were respectively led by Hamilton and Jefferson, the one with an avowed preference for monarchy, the other the great apostle of democracy."
Hunter adds, "A great leader, who came into the contest, used to say that in all good governments there existed a tax consuming and tax paying party, between whom a constant conflict existed, and in the history of that conflict the history of party strife would be found to consist; but when the first acquired complete supremacy, the nature, if not the form of the government, was sure to change. The leaders of the States rights party, aware of this, became more and more anxious to preserve their constitutional defences, and loudly proclaimed the danger of yielding them up."
Hunter notes, "In February, 1790, Congress resolved that it had no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or even the treatment of them within any of the States, it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity or true policy may require."
Hunter quotes a southerner, "The States would never have entered into the confederacy unless their property had been guaranteed to them."
Hunter explains, "Their property in slaves was guaranteed by the constitution."
Hunter goes on, "Nothing could be more clearly established than the right on one side to reclaim fugitive slaves, and the obligation on the other to return them. Long before the secession of the slave States, it had become almost impossible, without the assistance of armed forces, to reclaim a fugitive slave openly in the free States."
Hunter quotes Lunt, "At length fourteen of the sixteen free States had provided statutes which rendered any attempt to execute the fugitive slave act so difficult as to be practically impossible, and placed each of those States in an attitude of virtual resistance to the laws of the United States. At a somewhat later period those officers refused to surrender to justice persons charged with participation in the John Brown raid."
Hunter continues, " By 1819-20, when Missouri was struggling for admission as a slave State, the slave States at that time solemnly asserted their right to settle the unoccupied and unappropriated territory of the United States with their slave property, under the protection of its laws -- a right which was as vehemently denied by the free States. These agitations were settled for a time by a compromise excluding slavery from the United States Territories north of a line 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, and admitting it south of that line. Even this line left the South in a condition of hopeless inferiority. When the territory, obtained from Mexico, was organized, the Missouri compromise line was set aside, and the non intervention principle was adopted, by which it became between the sections a mere question of the ability to colonize -- a question in regard to which there could scarcely be a doubt, with the superior resources in wealth and population of the free States."
Hunter sums up, "It had become manifest that the South had no protection for its rights. Its hopes were daily becoming less, whilst sectional animosities were constantly becoming more angry and bitter. A party had sprung up which proclaimed the constitution to be an agreement with death and a covenant with hell. This party was daily becoming stronger. The Abolition party threatened to become most powerful.
Hunter adds, "An armed invasion of Virginia had been made by John Brown, with the avowed purpose of exciting servile insurrection, and although suppressed by the United States and State forces, it excited no such outburst of horror and denunciation at the North as it might reasonably be expected to have done. On the contrary, he seemed to have been considered more as a martyr than a criminal."
Hunter continues, "A Southern man could not well forget that Mr. Seward, the leader of the party in power, had affirmed there was a higher law than the constitution. Republican members of Congress declared, 'no cooperation with slaveholders in politics; no fellowship with them in religion; no affiliation with them in society; no recognition of pro slavery men, except as ruffians, outlaws and criminals. We are determined to abolish slavery at all hazards.'"
Hunter explains, "The majority in Congress, assumed whatever power they wanted. Could the minority rely upon the constitution to protect any of their rights, if it suited the passions or the interests of the majority to invade them? Our government was fast becoming despotic."
Hunter asks, "What else could the South do but separate?"
Hunter quotes Dainel Webster, "I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that if the Northern States refuse willfully or deliberately to carry into effect that part of the constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, the South would no longer be bound to keep the compact. A bargain broken on one side is broken on all sides."
Hunter quotes Greeley, "We once more insist, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that if the slave States, the cotton States, or the gulf States only, choose to form an independent nation, they have a moral right to do so."
Hunter concludes, ""Slavery was abolished without compensation, and slaves were awarded equal rights with their masters in the government. It was the fear of these results which drove the South into the war."
Hunter asks, "Will Congress now undertake to prescribe fast days, enforce temperance and take charge of the police laws of the States and the towns?
