December 26, 1860 (Wednesday)

                               Divergent currents colliding

"The Fathers of the Republic regarded Slavery as an evil, -- as retarding both the material and the moral progress of the Society which tolerated it, as an element of weakness to particular States, and of opprobrium to the whole country.  They did not consider slaveholding to be a sin, -- nor did they regard a slave-owner as necessarily less moral, less Christian, or less estimable than other men.  They did not favor immediate emancipation, because they knew that such a step would be fatal to the negroes themselves, and highly dangerous to the whole fabric of society.  But with scarcely an exception, -- they all desired that some policy might be adopted looking towards its ultimate extinction.  These were their sentiments on the general subject. 

The universal expectation of the day was, that under this policy Slavery would gradually die out, -- that one State after another would take steps to abolish it, and to substitute free labor in its place, -- and that thus in the course of time it would cease to exist in the whole country.  This purpose was repeatedly declared in Conventions and elsewhere and no one raised his voice against it.

Mr. Calhoun introduced a new theory on the subject.  He brought forward the doctrine that the Constitution recognized slaves as property, -- that, indeed, slaves were the only property which was expressly recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution. 

It had very few supporters.  No political party, either at the North or South, took ground in its favor.  Here is the 'irrepressible conflict'-- it is between the Constitution as our Fathers made it, and the new Constitution which you are seeking to put in its place. 

The real question at issue between the North and South turns upon this point -- are slaves property, in the meaning and intendment of the Constitution?  You answer Yes; we answer No.  And you are threatening to dissolve the Union unless we will also answer Yes.  Nay, more, -- you are already endeavoring to dissolve it, because we persist in answering No!

This is the question which I think should be finally settled now.  I think the whole country is of the same opinion. Undoubtedly, some don't want to join the issue...some prefer to evade or compromise...others underrate its importance.  But I think the great body of the reflecting portion of the people regard it in a different light.  They know that the issue is one of principle, -- that it takes hold on the fundamental conditions of the national life, -- and that until it is distinctly and decisively settled, by a final and authoritative judgment, in which the whole country shall come to acquiesce, we can have no hope of peace and no chance of escape from these constant and disturbing agitations. 

Your aim is to nationalize Slavery -- to make it a national instead of a local institution.  You demand that slavery be recognized as Chattel Property, that the Law of Slave Property will be stable and honorable, wherever the flag of the United States can compel its recognition. 

But now you have brought your batteries to the central tower, and we are summoned to surrender.  That question does not admit of compromise.  It must be settled.  The flag of Liberty must still float from the ramparts of the Constitution, or you must take it down.  This is the 'irrepressible conflict.'  We do not make it, -- nor invite it; -- but if you insist upon it, we shall not shrink from its issues."
 
(Fourth Letter written to W. L. Yancey (Father of Secession) from Mr. Raymond  (Editor of the New York Times, December 26, 1860)