It was Easter Sunday, March 27, 1513. The Southern sun was shining brightly over the placid bay of St. Augustine. Blooming flowers in the rich profusion characteristic of that soil and climate delighted the eye with their beauty and filled the air with their fragrance. The natives gathering on the beach gazed out upon the waters with awe and wonder at the white-winged ships slowly but surely approaching their shores. It was the fleet of Spain, commanded by John Ponce de Leon, who had been one of the companions of Columbus in his second voyage. He came now furnished with a royal charter to explore and conquer.

This expedition and others, dispatched in rapid succession during the century following the first voyage of Columbus, resulted in confirming the dominion of Spain in all of South and Central America, Mexico, and much of what is now the southern portion of the United States. In 1535, a French expedition under Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence and gave the name of New France to the territory along its shores. As early as 1497 the Cabots received patents from the English crown to set up the royal standard in any of the newly-discovered lands, but with the exception of the expedition under the ill-starred Lord Raleigh, the first attempt to plant an English colony in America was that at Jamestown in 1607. So the Saxon or English-speaking people were nearly a century behind the Latin race in their attempt to assert jurisdiction over, take possession of and occupy territory upon the new continent. But, with the exception of Napoleon's momentary control in Louisiana, the rule of France in this country was effectually terminated by the treaty of Paris on February 7, 1763; and the Spanish crown, which once exercised dominion over all explored parts of America, and claimed the right to all by virtue of discovery, is now left without sovereignty in the Western hemisphere.

In April, 1528, Pamfilo de Narvaez landed with 300 men on the shore of Tampa bay. He marched northward, believing that in the interior he would find a wealthy empire similar to those of Mexico and Peru. The greater number of this expedition perished, but Alvar Nuflez and four companions made their way westward, passed through south Alabama, and finally reached the Spanish settlement of Mexico. These were the first white men who ever trod the soil of Alabama. In May, 1539, Hernando de Soto, with 1,000 chosen cavaliers, most of them from the best blood of Spain and Portugal, sailed into Tampa bay and disembarked at about the same spot where Narvaez landed eleven years before. Many months were spent in exploring eastern Florida, and then he turned northwardly into Georgia, at every turn confronted by a trackless wilderness and often surrounded by hostile tribes of Indians. In one of his earliest conflicts with natives he rescued Jean Ortiz, one of the Spanish followers of Narvaez, who for eleven years had been held as a prisoner by the Indians. The knowledge of the Indian customs and language acquired by Ortiz during captivity was of invaluable use to De Soto.

On July 2, 1540, the army passed from Georgia into Alabama at the site of the Indian village of Costa, which was situated near where the city of Rome, Ga., now stands. De Soto was received kindly by the Indian chieftain, but depredations committed by some of the soldiers precipitated a conflict, which, however, was quelled by the courage and presence of mind of De Soto, and the wrath of the natives appeased. The wily Spaniard then enticed the chief within his lines and held him as hostage until he was ransomed with provisions and slaves. On July 26th, De Soto approached the town of Coosa. The chieftain with 1,000 tall, sprightly and active warriors came out to meet him with the most friendly greetings, but, like the chieftain of Costa, he, too, was held as a prisoner and hostage to enable De Soto to extort ransom and to prevent any hostility on the part of the Indian warriors. De Soto then turned southward to Maubila, the principal city of the Maubilians, which was situated at what is now Choctaw Bluff, Clarke county. Tuskaloosa, the chieftain of that tribe, was a very handsome man about forty years old and of most extraordinary stature; he was entirely undemonstrative, but it soon became evident that he regarded the Spaniards with grave suspicion. Nevertheless, upon entering the city they were received with music, the most graceful dancing of beautiful Indian girls, and other outward signs of hospitality.

The Spaniards soon found that they were in the midst of an armed force of Indians fully ten times their number. A dispute between a native and a Spanish officer was the beginning of a most terrible battle; De Soto succeeded in getting outside of the gates, and deployed his soldiers so as to meet the swarm of Indians that were sweeping down upon them, a large body of which were directing their attack upon the horses of the Spaniards. The Indians used missiles of all kinds. Bows and arrows were used with great skill, while in hand-to-hand conflict the savages fought with wooden cleavers and enormous clubs. After three hours of battle, the Spanish were reinforced by the arrival of their rear guard under Muscoso. Encouraged by this addition of fresh troops, the heavily-armored Spaniards, with their superior weapons, rushed upon their opponents, indiscriminately slaughtering them without regard to age or sex. The Spanish accounts tell us this battle lasted nine hours; that 11,000 Indians were slain, while the Spaniards lost 81 killed and nearly every Spanish warrior was wounded. The killed included Rodriguez, a noble Portuguese of high rank, and two nephews of De Soto—Diego De Soto and Don Carlos Enriquez. Many of the Spanish horses were killed and much of their provisions, clothing and stores of various description were destroyed. The desperate condition of the Spaniards in a hostile wilderness, many of them seriously wounded and with scanty supplies, was more than counterbalanced by the terror which their prodigies of valor had aroused in the savages.

This conflict, one of the most severe in the history of that character of warfare, was very near the site of Fort Mims, where, on August 30, 1813, 273 years afterward, the Creek warrior, Weatherford, with 1000 savage followers, attacked, and during a five hours conflict slaughtered 531 men, women and children, including white soldiers, friendly Indians and negroes.

The original plan of De Soto was to rejoin his ships in Pensacola bay, but fearing that many of his followers would refuse to remain with him for further exploration he turned toward the northwest, passing through the country that now forms the counties of Clarke, Marengo, Greene and Pickens. During the journey he had many conflicts with the Indians, encountering a large force on the Black Warrior with which he had a very serious engagement. He then turned into the Indian village of Chickasaw, near the site of the modern city of Columbus, Miss. De Soto and his followers had occupied five months in passing through what is now the State of Alabama. They were met on the eastern border with the most hospitable and kindly treatment, which they returned with treachery, cruelty, injustice and destruction, leaving ruin and desolation in their path. The story of these five months of bloodshed by De Soto furnishes the first authentic account of warfare within the boundaries of Alabama.

Although after this for a century and a half the foot of white man never pressed the soil of this territory, still the inhabitants did not enjoy it in peaceful possession. After the death of Montezuma and the conquest of Mexico by Cortez, the Muscogees, a powerful tribe of Indians from the northwestern part of that country, being unwilling to submit to the control of the Spaniards, sought new homes to the eastward, and we have vague accounts of the battles fought, by which they despoiled weaker and more peaceful tribes and occupied the territory, where they were found by French explorers toward the end of the seventeenth century.

In April, 1682, La Salle took possession of the mouth of the Mississippi river, and the French Canadians were active about this time in founding settlements along that river and upon the Gulf coast. In 1699 the Spaniards made a settlement at Pensacola and also laid claim to Mobile bay. Lords Bienville and Iberville founded the town of Natchez, and in 1702 they built Fort Louis (de la Louisiana) at the mouth of Dog river. The French found large numbers of human bones on Dauphin island and for many years it was called the Island of Massacre. Treaties of peace were made with the Muscogees and Alabama Indians, but these treaties did not secure to the settlers any long-continued freedom from strife; and the early occupancy by the French of South Alabama was constantly disturbed by conflicts with the Indians of greater or less severity. The hostility of the Indians to the French was intensified by the intrigues of the English.

In 1707, France and Spain having united against England, Lord Bienville, with 150 French Canadians, went to the relief of Pensacola; but the English and their Indian allies evacuated the place before the arrival of the French. In 1711 the site of Mobile was permanently settled and three years later Lord Bienville, having succeeded in making treaties with the Indians, sailed up the Alabama river, passed the present location of Montgomery and established Fort Toulouse, at the site of the present town of Wetumpka. Later, a settlement was made at Montgomery, and Fort Tombecbee was established at what is now called Jones' Bluff. Fort Toulouse contained four bastions, mounted with eight cannon, and was garrisoned by the French till 1763, except for a short period in 1722 when the troops mutinied, killed their commander and deserted the garrison.

In 1719, France was at war with Spain, and on May 4th Lord Bienville attacked Pensacola, captured the garrison and sent the captives to Havana. Later, during the summer, Matamora, the Spanish governor of Cuba, retook Pensacola. The Spaniards landed on Dauphin island and bombarded Fort Filippe, but were repulsed by Sevigny, whose command consisted of 260 soldiers and 200 Indians. The French fleet arrived, Pensacola was again retaken by the French and held by them until 1723, when it was restored to Spain by treaty. It was during this year that the seat of government was transferred from Mobile to New Orleans, which materially lessened the importance of the former city. Ten years later the French, under Bienville and D'Artaguette, returned and established themselves at Mobile. The control of the French over the Indians was now seriously disturbed by the intrigues of the English, who had established strong and permanent settlements in the Carolinas. They sought every opportunity to incite the natives against the French, and in 1736 the irritation and disturbances ripened into warlike outbreaks. The French and their allies, the Choctaws, marched against the Chickasaws, who had joined the English. The principal battle was fought at Ackia, May 26, 1736, in which the French were defeated. Bienville retreated to Mobile with most of his army, but D'Artaguette and a part of the troops were cut off, taken prisoners, cruelly held as hostages for quite a period, and finally they were all murdered. Sixteen years later, in 1752, the French and Choctaws, under De Vaudreuil, again attacked the Chickasaws, only to meet another disaster. The Chickasaws are described as the bravest and most warlike of all the Indian inhabitants of Alabama They finally dwindled away before the advance of civilization, but were never conquered by armed forces.

The aggressive English finally, in 1765, established themselves in Alabama, an agreement being made by which the territory then included under the name of Illinois was extended as far south as 32° 28′, about the latitude of Demopolis. The claim of the Spaniards to Florida was based upon their treaty with England of 783, and for many years there was incessant border warfare between the Spaniards and their Indian allies on one side and the colonists (mostly from Georgia) and their native allies on the other. This subjected our early settlers to almost constant Indian incursions for booty and massacre.

During this period the French were carrying on trade near the site of the present cities of Tuscumbia and Florence, and, mainly due to their influence, the Creeks and Cherokees were active in their hostilities upon the American settlers.

The war for independence between the colonists and Great Britain, which lasted from 1775 to 1781, was confined to the lakes, the Atlantic coast and adjacent territory, and the country now known as Alabama can hardly be said to have been affected thereby. The colonial government having been firmly established, Col. James Robinson in 1787 marched from the Cumberland region into Alabama against the depredating Indians. They were subdued for a time, but again renewed hostilities, until finally quelled by a band of brave Americans under Captain Shannon.

In 1806, the arrest of Aaron Burr near Fort Stoddard by Captain (afterward Major-General) Gaines, U. S. Army, added a feature to the military history of the State. Burr's Southwestern enterprise had proven a failure. In Mississippi he had been arrested and released, but his expedition had become a menace to our government and Captain Gaines therefore arrested and sent him under guard to Richmond, where in August, 1807, he was tried and finally acquitted.

One of the ablest and most sagacious enemies of the earlier settlers of Alabama was the great Shawnee Indian chief, Tecumseh. He was commanding in appearance and exercised a powerful influence among many of the native tribes of America. Upon the breaking out of war between the United States and Great Britain in 1812, Tecumseh and his followers became allies of the British, and during the summer of 1812 he was of great service to them in their operations around Detroit and upon the lakes. In October the British dispatched him to the South to incite the Seminoles, Creeks, Chickasaws and other tribes against the United States. Frequent outrages were perpetrated by the savages, and all the frontier settlements were in constant danger of attack.

In July, 1813, a battle was fought between the Creeks and the troops under Col. James Kellar. In August Gen. F. L. Claiborne reached Mobile from Baton Rouge. He constructed a series of forts and adopted other measures to secure the safety of the people. On August 30th the massacre of Fort Mims, before mentioned, took place. This was followed by many other atrocities on the people of Alabama, and under orders from the general government, Gen. Andrew Jackson at the head of a large force marched to these scenes of warfare. His advance, under General Coffee at the head of 900 men, crossed the Coosa, and with a loss of 5 killed and 41 wounded defeated the Indians, 200 strong, at Tallashatchee, destroying their villages and disabling 84 savages.

On November 9th, Gen. Andrew Jackson, commanding 2,200 men, defeated 1,000 Indians, with a loss of 15 killed and 86 wounded, inflicting on them a loss of 2900. On November 18th, Gen. James White, with 260 men, defeated 360 Indians at Hillabee; 62 Indians were killed and 256 were made prisoners. On November 29th, Gen. John Floyd with a force 950 strong successfully attacked a large body of Indians at Autossee; 200 of the savages were killed, his loss being 1 killed and 54 wounded.

December 23d, Gen. F. L. Claiborne with a loss of 1 killed and 6 wounded dispersed a body of Indians at Eccanachaca, killing 30 of their number. On January 22d General Jackson, commanding a force of 1, 150 strong, defeated 900 Indians at Emuckfa, killing 189 of the savages. January 27th, the Creeks attacked General Floyd at Camp Defiance, losing 37 of their warriors and inflicting a loss of 20 killed and 125 wounded.

March 27th, General Jackson fought the battle of Horse Shoe Bend; his force was 2,400 and his loss 26 killed and 111 wounded. These victories and minor successes in other parts of the State by Major Blue, commanding regular troops, and Colonel Pearson, of the North Carolina militia, effectually ended the Indian disturbances in Alabama, the savages gladly entering into a treaty of peace. General Jackson was placed in command of the Southern army and proceeded to Mobile to protect the Gulf coast, which was now menaced by the British fleet. He strengthened Fort Bowyer, situated on a tongue of land about thirty miles from Mobile, defending it with 20 guns and 160 men under Major Lawrence. This fort was on the present site of Fort Morgan.

On September 12th the fort was attacked by a party of 712 British and Indians under Colonel Nichols, assisted by two sloops and two brigs. They were beaten off with the loss of 200 men and one of the ships. The British ships also made an attack on Mobile, but retired without doing any material damage. General Jackson then marched with 4,000 men to Pensacola, drove the British from Fort Barrancas, and then proceeded to New Orleans, where, on January 8th, he won his great victory over the British General Pakenham. A month later a fleet of 38 British war vessels and 5,000 soldiers captured Fort Bowyer, but as peace had been declared, they only held it a few weeks. The withdrawal of the British troops enabled the government to make very satisfactory treaties with the Indians.

On March 1817, the present territorial limits of Alabama were defined by Congress, and on December 14, 1819, it became one of the States of the Union. In 1830 the Choctaws ceded their lands to the government. In 1832 the Creeks made their cession, as did the Cherokees in 1835. Many of the Indians were opposed to the sale of their lands and considerable friction followed, making it necessary to assemble a large body of troops to suppress indications of outbreaks by both Creeks and Cherokees, but finally, in 1838, their removal to the West was peaceably accomplished.

From this time until the war of 1861 Alabama enjoyed a condition of peace, but its people held themselves ready to assist their brethren in neighboring States. Several companies of Alabamians volunteered and fought in the Seminole and Florida wars and a still greater number gave their services to assist in Texan independence. Many of these perished, a considerable number being victims of the Goliad massacre, where 330 persons were murdered in the most atrocious manner. Milton Irish and Bennet Butler, from Huntsville, were among the few who escaped, and Captain Shackleford, of Courtland, was spared because he was a physician and the Mexicans needed his services to attend their wounded. When war was declared against Mexico, thousands upon thousands of patriotic citizens of this State tendered their services to the government, but only one regiment composed entirely of Alabamians could be accepted. It was organized at Mobile in June, 1846, and designated as the First Alabama volunteers. Its officers were as follows: Col. John R. Coffee, Lieut.-Col. Richard G. Earle, Maj. Goode Bryan, Adjt. Hugh M. Watson, Capts. Sydenham Moore, Andrew P. Pickens, Hugh Cunningham, E. T. Smith, Zach Thomason, William G. Coleman, R. M. Jones, William H. Ketchum, D. P. Baldwin and J. D. Shelley. The regiment proceeded to Mexico, first served under General Pillow and afterward under General Shields. In 1847 Colonel Seibels, of Montgomery, organized a battalion; it reached Vera Cruz too late to join Scott's column, but performed garrison duty at Orizaba until the termination of hostilities. Its captains were: John G. Burr, T. E. Irby, Tennent Lomax, Blanton McAlpine and Gibbs. The Thirteenth regiment of regulars included a large number of Alabamians. Jones M. Withers, of Mobile, who graduated at West Point in 1835, was its lieutenant-colonel, and Egbert I. Jones, Hugh L. Clay and Nicholas Davis were among its officers. A small battalion commanded by Col. Phillip H. Raiford, composed of the companies of Captains Curtis, Downman and Ligon and independent companies commanded by Captains Desha, Elmore, Platt and James McGee, also volunteered and served in the war with Mexico. Of these the only cavalry company was that of Captain McGee; all the others were infantry.

Many of the Alabamians who served in Mexico became quite distinguished in civil life and in the war of 1861-65. Jones M. Withers was distinguished as a major-general in the army under General Bragg. Hugh L. Clay served with great credit in the department of the adjutant-general and was tendered the appointment of brigadier-general. Egbert I. Jones became quite prominent as a lawyer, was made colonel of the Fourth Alabama in 1861, and was mortally wounded at the battle of Manassas, leaving a glorious record for courage and bravery. Nicholas Davis was a member of the Confederate Provisional Congress, and was appointed lieutenant-colonel of the Nineteenth infantry, which position he declined in order to accept the command of an Alabama battalion. Hon. Jeremiah Clemens, who served as colonel of the Ninth regulars, won great reputation as a member of the United States House of Representatives and also as United States senator. Early in the war he was appointed major-general of the Alabama State troops, but did not enter the regular Confederate service.

Maj. Goode Bryan became a distinguished Confederate general. Col. Sydenham Moore practiced law and was elected to the United States Congress. He took part in the war as colonel of the Eleventh Alabama infantry and died of wounds received at the battle of Seven Pines. William H. Forney served during the entire four years of the war, beeame a brigadier-general and made a fine reputation as an officer and a soldier. He afterward was Alabama State senator for two years and a prominent representative in the United States Congress for eighteen years. Richard Gordon Earle became a Confederate cavalry general and was killed in battle at Kingston, Ga.

After returning from Mexico, Colonel Coffee lived for fifty years a respected and highly-esteemed citizen, and acquired great wealth. Colonel Seibels, like Colonel Coffee, declined to accept public office, preferring to devote himself to private business, in which he was very successful. Tennent Lomax was a splendid specimen of manhood, both physically and intellectually. Though quite young while in Mexico, he was appointed military governor of Orizaba After the Mexican war he engaged in journalism. In 1861 he successfully performed the delicate duty of taking possession of Forts Barrancas and McRee at Pensacola. In April, 1861, he was appointed colonel of the Third Alabama infantry; was highly esteemed as a soldier; was promoted to a brigadier-gen- eralship, but before receiving his commission was killed while gallantly leading his regiment at the battle of Seven Pines. Lieuts. John L. May and William R. King were among the officers from Alabama who were killed in battle during the Mexican war.

Three decades and a half of years, the life of a generation, have passed since the close of the military career of the actors in that long and sanguinary struggle, the war of the Confederacy. Few comparatively are left of the hosts who fought under Lee and Jackson, the Johnstons and Bragg. Still, many of those from Alabama are yet living and hold positions of trust and honor, continuing to serve the State for which they fought. To form any idea of the motives which then actuated them and the causes which precipitated the war, we must cast aside our environments of to-day, and looking backward find a point where we can stand face to face with the issues that confronted the statesmen of 1860.

The prosperity of the South depended very largely upon the labor which constituted a great part of its wealth, most of which had been imported from Africa in New England ships and sold by New Englanders to people of the South. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed that all the power of the government should be exercised to protect and secure the people in the use and enjoyment of this property, but for more than a third of a century this valued constitutional right had been assailed by a party in the North that had gradually gathered to itself strength and power, one encroachment and violation of law following another.

People throughout the South were confronted with this situation. The most of the Northern States had by solemn enactment nullified the Constitution and the laws of Congress, and emissaries from the North, arousing the negroes to arson, rapine and murder, were being dispatched to the Southern States. Their partial success in the John Brown raid had caused widespread terror and alarm. The prevailing sentiment on every side was that prompt action was essential to protect lives and property. As early as 1848 this aggression on the rights of the South had become such a menace that John C. Calhoun contended that we ought to force the issue of the slavery question in the North; and said, moreover, We are now stronger, relatively, than we shall be hereafter politically and morally.

The Democratic party of Alabama assembled in convention at Montgomery, January 11, 1860, and with scarcely a dissenting voice adopted resolutions in substance as follows: That the principles recognized by the Supreme court in the Dred Scott case should be maintained by the South; that their delegates to the approaching national Democratic convention at Charleston should present these resolutions for the adoption of that body; that they insist upon the adoption of the resolutions in substance, and that if they be not adopted, the delegates must withdraw.

The Alabama legislature, on February 24, 1860, adopted the following:

Whereas, Anti-slavery agitation persistently continued in the non-slaveholding States of this Union for more than a third of a century, marked at every stage of its progress by contempt for the obligations of law and the sanctity of compacts, evincing a deadly hostility to the rights and institutions of the Southern people, and a settled purpose to effect their overthrow even by the subversion of the Constitution, and at the hazard of violence and bloodshed; and, Whereas, a sectional party calling itself Republican, committed alike by its own acts and antecedents, and the public avowals and secret machinations of its leaders to the execution of these atrocious designs, has acquired the ascedency in nearly every Northern State, and hopes by success in the approaching presidential election to seize the government itself; and, Whereas, to permit such seizure by those whose unmistakable aim is to pervert its whole machinery to the destruction of a portion of its members would be an act of suicidal folly and madness, almost without a parallel in history; and, Whereas, the General Assembly of Alabama, representing a people loyally devoted to the Union of the Constitution, but scorning the Union which fanaticism would erect upon its ruins, deem it their solemn duty to provide in advance the means by which they may escape such peril and dishonor, and devise new securities for perpetuating the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, therefore,

Be it resolved, That, upon the happening of the contingency contemplated in the foregoing preamble, namely, the election of a President advocating the principles and action of the party in the Northern States, calling itself the Republican party, it shall be the duty of the governor, and he is hereby required, forthwith, to issue his proclamation, calling upon the qualified voters of this State. . . to elect delegates to a convention of the State, to consider, determine and do whatever in the opinion of said convention, the rights, interests, and honor of the State of Alabama requires to be done for their protection.

The national Democratic convention met at Charleston, April 23, 1860. On the 27th the committee on resolutions disagreed. The majority report accepted the Cincinnati platform with a clause added which explained the doctrine of non-intervention as laid down in the decision of the Supreme court which was delivered by Chief-Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case. This was satisfactory to the Southern delegates. The minority report reaffirmed the Cincinnati platform and then proceeded to assert that differences of opinion exist in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a territorial legislature and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery in the Territories.

The objections of the Southern delegates to this vague expression in the minority report were explained by Mr. Yancey in a speech in opposition to its adoption. After reviewing the situation he said:

Gentlemen of the convention, that venerable, that able, that revered jurist, the Honorable Chief Justice of the United States, trembling upon the very verge of the grave, for years kept merely alive by the pure spirit of patriotic duty that burns within his breast—a spirit that will not permit him to succumb to the gnawings of disease and the weaknesses of mortality—which hold him, as it were, suspended between two worlds, with his spotless ermine around him, standing at the altar of Justice, has given to us the utterance of the Supreme court of the United States upon this very question. (Applause.)

Let the murmur of the hustings be stilled—let the voices of individual citizens, no matter how great and respected in their appropriate spheres, be hushed, while the law, as expounded by the constituted authority of the country, emotionless, passionless and just, rolls with its silvery cadence over the entire realm, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the ice-bound regions of the North to the glittering waters of the Gulf. (Loud cheering.)

What says that decision? That decision tells you, gentlemen, that the territorial legislature has no power to interfere with the rights of the slave-owner in the territory while in a territorial condition. (Cheers.) That decision tells that this government is a Union of Sovereign States; which States are co-equal, and in trust for which co-equal States the government holds the territories. It tells you that the people of those co-equal States have a right to go into these territories, thus held in trust, with every species of property which is recognized as property by the State in which they live, or by the Constitution of the United States. The venerable magistrate—the court concurring with him—decided that it is the duty of this government to afford some government for the territories which shall be in accordance with this trust, with this delegated trust power held for the States and for the people of the States. That decision goes still further: It tells you that if Congress has seen fit, for its own convenience and somewhat in accordance with the sympathies and instincts and genius of our institutions, to accord a form of government to the people of the territories, it is to be administered precisely as Congress can administer it, and to be administered as a trust for the co-equal States of the Union, and the citizens of those States who choose to emigrate to those territories. That decision goes on to tell you this: That as Congress itself is bound to protect the property which is recognized as such of the citizens of any of the States—as Congress itself not only has on power, but is expressly forbidden to exercise the power to deprive any owner of his property in the territories; therefore, says that venerable, that passionless representative of justice, who yet hovers on the confines of the grave, therefore, no government formed by that Congress can have any more power than the Congress that created it.

Mr. Yancey then went on to explain that Mr. Douglas and his followers insisted upon a construction which virtually nullified the Dred Scott decision. He said:

They put themselves directly in conflict with the venerable chief justice of the Supreme court of the United States, and with the recorded decision of the court itself. . . . Now then, who shall the Democracy recognize as authority on this point—a statesman, no matter how brilliant and able and powerful in intellect, in the very meridian of life, animated by an ardent and consuming ambition, struggling as no other man has ever done for the high and brilliant position of candidate for the presidency of the United States, at the hand of his great party—or that old and venerable jurist who, having filled his years with honor, leaves you his last great decision before stepping from the high place of earthly power into the grave to appear before his Maker, in whose presence deception is impossible and earthly position as dust in the balance? (Loud and continued cheering.)

Notwithstanding this eloquent appeal, the vote was taken and by a bare majority the minority report was substituted for the majority report. This was the signal for disruption. The Alabama delegation withdrew from the convention, followed by those of the other Gulf States. On May 19th a convention met at Baltimore under the name of the Constitutional Union party (its motto being, The Constitution, the Union and the Enforcement of the Laws). John Bell, of Tennessee, and Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, were nominated as its candidates for President and Vice-President.

On June 18th, the Douglas members of the Charleston convention met in Baltimore, and the supporters of the majority report who had withdrawn at Charleston assembled at Richmond, afterward adjourning to meet at Baltimore. They were not, however, admitted to that convention, as the Douglas members excluded them from participation in its proceedings, seating in their stead new delegates who came pledged to support Mr. Douglas, who was nominated by this convention. Upon the exclusion of the old delegates, Mr. Cushing, the president of the convention and five others of the Massachusetts delegates, together with delegates from Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland, California, Oregon and Arkansas, the only Democratic States, withdrew to join them. Having organized under the title of the National State Rights Democracy and adopted the now famous majority report from Charleston, John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, was nominated. Mr. Lincoln having been the choice of the Republican convention at Chicago in May, the campaign opened with four presidential candidates in the field.

The vote for President of the United States on November 6, 1860, was: Abraham Lincoln1,866,352Stephen A. Douglas1,375,157John C. Breckinridge845,581John Bell589,581 The vote in the Southern slave States:Abraham Lincoln26,430Stephen A. Douglas163,525John C. Breckinridge543,781John Bell488,923The vote in the Gulf States:Abraham LincolnStephen A. Douglas24,926John C. Breckinridge168,400John Bell94,444The vote in Alabama:Abraham LincolnStephen A. Douglas13,651John C. Breckinridge48,831John Bell27,825

When on that fateful 6th of November, 1860, it was decided by the election of Mr. Lincoln that Black Republican rule was to dominate the Union and crush the South under with its compromising cruelty. The North and the South both knew that the election of Lincoln meant the destruction of slavery, to be so accomplished as to bring financial ruin, if not entire annihilation; for Wendell Phillips had said: This state of things is just what we have attempted to bring about. ... The Republican party is a party of the North, pledged against the South.

Believing firmly in the sovereignty of the State, there was never an idea among the masses of the people of the South that secession would entail war. A few of the prominent leaders and profound thinkers foresaw the consequences, still peaceable secession was the thought uppermost. Coercion, VI et armis,was not dreamed of; and these ideas were not confined to the Southern people. The opinion had always prevailed throughout the Union that secession was a right vested in each separate State, and that an attempt to coerce a sovereign State would be unwarrantable and unconstitutional. John Quincy Adams but gave expression to this universal sentiment when in a speech delivered April 30, 1839, on the occasion of the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of our government under the Constitution, he said:

But the indissoluble union between the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political asseveration will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution to form again a more perfect Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.

It is a remarkable fact that in 1848 the distinguished son of this illustrious gentleman received 291,267 votes as candidate of the Free Soil party for the vicepresi-dency.

This principle of the right of secession had been always sanctioned by the people of Massachusetts. When it was proposed to annex Louisiana to the Federal Union, the legislature passed the following resolution: That the annexation of Louisiana to the Union transcends the constitutional power of the government of the United States. It formed a new confederacy, to which the States united by the former compact are not bound to adhere. In the year 1844 it was resolved by that legislature: . .. .That the project of the annexation of Texas, unless arrested on the threshold, may drive these States into a dissolution of the Union.

The opinion of the conservative element in the North, that this agitation was an invasion of the constitutional rights of the South, was expressed by that grand old constitutional lawyer, Daniel Webster. In a speech at Buffalo, delivered on May 22, 1851, he said:

Then there . .was the fugitive slave law. Let me say a word about that. Under the provisions of the Constitution, during Washington's administration in the year 1793, there was passed by general consent a law for the restoration of fugitive slaves. Hardly any one opposed it at that period; it was thought to be necessary in order to carry the Constitution into effect; the great men of New England and New York all concurred in it. It passed and answered all the purposes expected from it till about the year 1841 or 1842, when the State interfered to make enactments in opposition to it. ... Now, I undertake as a lawyer and on my professional character to say to you and to all, that the law of 1850 is decidedly more favorable to the fugitive than General Washington's law of 1793. . . . Such is the present law, and, much opposed and maligned as it is, it is more favorable to the fugitive slave than the law enacted during Washington's administration in 1793, which was sanctioned by the North as well as by the South. The present violent opposition has sprung up in modern times. From whom does this clamor come? Why, look at the proceedings of the anti-slavery conventions; look at their resolutions. Do you find among those persons who oppose this fugitive slave law any admission whatever that any law ought to be passed to carry into effect the solemn stipulations of the Constitution? Tell me any such case. Tell me if any resolution was adopted by the convention at Syracuse favorable to the carrying out of the Constitution. Not one. The fact is, gentlemen, they oppose the constitutional provision; they oppose the whole. Not a man of them admits that there ought to be any law on the subject. They deny altogether that the provisions of the Constitution ought to be carried into effect. Look at the proceedings of the anti-slavery conventions in Ohio, Massachusetts and at Syracuse in the State of New York. What do they say? That so help them God no colored man shall be sent from the State of New York back to his master in Virginia. Do not they say that? And to the fulfillment of that they pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Their sacred honor! They pledge their sacred honor to violate the Constitution; they pledge their sacred honor to commit treason against the laws of their country.

Mr. Webster, in his speech at Capon Springs, also said:

The leading sentiment in the toast from the chair is the Union of the States. What mind can comprehend the consequences of that Union, past, present, and to come. The Union of these States is the all-absorbing topic of the day; on it all men write, speak think, and dilate, from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof. And yet, gentlemen, I fear its importance has been but insufficiently appreciated.

[Again Mr. Webster says:] How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest. I intend for one to regard and maintain and carry out to the fullest extent the Constitution of the United States, which I have sworn to support in all its parts and all its provisions. It is written in the Constitution, No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

This is as much a part of the Constitution as any other, and as equally binding and obligatory as any other on all men, public or private. And who denies this? None but the abolitionists of the North. And pray what is it they will not deny? They have but the one idea; and it would seem that these fanatics at the North and the secessionists at the South are putting their heads together to devise means to defeat the good designs of honest,patriotic men. They act to the same end and the same object, and the Constitution has to take the fire from both sides.

I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse willfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side. I say to you, gentlemen in Virginia, as I said on the shores of Lake Erie and in the city of Boston, as I may say again in that city or elsewhere in the North, that you of the South have as much right to receive your fugitive slaves as the North has to any of its rights and privileges of navigation and commerce. Mr. Webster also said: I am as ready to fight and to fall for the constitutional rights of Virginia as I am for those of Massachusetts.

Horace Greeley, the noted abolitionist, one of the fosterfathers, if not the parent of free-soilism, perhaps the most widely popular and best informed of the Northern journalists, who must be regarded as an able exponent of the sentiments of the people, was outspoken even to rashness in upholding the doctrine of the right of secession. Indeed his course would seem to prove that he did all in his power to hasten the Southern States into secession. We give extracts from the New York Tribune, Mr. Greeley's paper, beginning with the date when it was first known that Mr. Lincoln was certainly elected.

New York Tribune, November 9, 1860.—If the cotton States shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless. [And again in the same issue of his widely-circulated and influential paper, Mr. Greeley said:] We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof. To withdraw from the Union is quite another matter; and whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets. Let them have both sides of the question fully presented. Let them reflect, deliberate, then vote; and let the action of secession be the echo of an unmistakable popular fiat. A judgment thus rendered, a demand for separation thus backed, would either be acquiesced in without the effusion of blood, or those who rushed upon carnage to defy and defeat it would place themselves clearly in the wrong.

New York Tribune, November 16, 1860.—Still we say, in all earnestness and good faith, whenever a whole section of this republic, whether a half, a third, or only a fourth, shall truly desire and demand a separation from the residue, we shall earnestly favor such separation. If the fifteen slave States, or even the eight cotton States alone, shall quietly, decisively, say to the rest, We prefer to be henceforth separated from you, we shall insist they be permitted to go in peace. War is a hideous necessity at best, and a civil conflict, a war of estranged and embittered fellow countrymen, is the most hideous of all wars. Whenever the people of the cotton States shall have definitely and decisively made up their minds to separate from the rest of us, we shall urge that the proper steps be taken to give full effect to their decision.

New York Tribune, November 19, 1860.—Now we believe and maintain that the Union is to be preserved only so long as it is beneficial and satisfactory to all parties concerned. We do not believe that any man, any neighborhood, town, county or even State may break up the Union in any transient gust of passion; we fully comprehend that secession is an extreme, an ultimate resort—not a constitutional but a revolutionary remedy. But we insist that this Union shall not be held together by force whenever it shall have ceased to cohere by the mutual attraction of its parts; and whenever the slave States or the cotton States only shall unitedly and coolly say to the rest, We want to get out of the Union, we shall urge that their request be acceded to.

New York Tribune, November 24, 1860.—Some of the Washington correspondents telegraph that Mr. Buchanan is attempting to map out a middle course in which to steer his bark during the tempest which now howls about him. He is to condemn the asserted right of secession but to assert in the same breath that he is opposed to keeping a State in the Union by what he calls Federal coercion. Now we have no desire to prevent secession by coercion, but we hold this position to be utterly unsupported by law or reason.

New York Tribune, November 30, 1860.—Are We Going to Fight?—But if the cotton States generally unite with her in seceding, we insist that they cannot be prevented, and that the attempt must not be made. Five millions of people, more than half of them of the dominant race of whom at least half a million are able and willing to shoulder muskets, can never be subdued while fighting around and over their own hearthstones. If they could be, they would no longer be equal members of the Union, but conquered dependencies. . . We propose to wrest this potent engine from the disunionists by saying frankly to the slave States: If you choose to leave the Union, leave it, but let us have no quarrel about it. If you think it a curse to you and an unfair advantage to us, repudiate it, and see if you are not mistaken. If you are better by yourselves, go and God speed you. For our part, we have done very well with you, and are quite willing to keep along with you, but if the association is irksome to you, we have too much self-respect to insist on its continuance. We have lived by our industry thus far and hope to do so still, even though you leave us. We repeat that only the sheen of Northern bayonets can bind the South wholly to the evils of secession, but that may do it. Let us be patient, neither speaking daggers nor using them, standing to our principles but not to our arms, and all will yet be well.

New York Tribune, December 8, 1860.—. . . . . We again avow our deliberate conviction that whenever six or eight contiguous States shall have formally seceded from the Union, and avowed the pretty unanimous and earnest resolve of their people to stay out, it will not be found practicable to coerce them into subjection; and we doubt that any Congress can be found to direct and provide for such coercion. One or two States may be coerced, but not the entire section, or quarter of a Union. If you do not believe this, wait and see.

New York Tribune, December 17, 1860.— . . . .But if ever seven or eight States sent agents to Washington to say, We want to get out of the Union, we shall feel constrained by our devotion to human liberty to say, Let them go. And we do not see how we could take the other side without coming in direct conflict with those rights of man which we hold paramount to all political arrangements, however convenient and advantageous.

New York Tribune, December 24, 1860.—Most certainly we believe that governments are made for the peoples, not peoples for the governments; that the latter derive their just power from the consent of the governed; and whenever a portion of this Union, large enough to form an independent self-subsisting nation, shall show that and say authentically to the residue, We want to get away from you, I shall say, and we trust self-respect, if not regard for the principles of self-government, will constrain the residue of the American people to say, Go.

New York Tribune, December 28, 1860.— . . . Nor is it treason for the State to hate the Union and seek its disruption. A State, a whole section, may come to regard the Union as a blight upon its prosperity, an obstacle to its progress, and be fully justified in seeking its dissolution. And in spite of the adverse clamor, we insist that if ever a third or even a fourth of these States shall have deliberately concluded that the Union is injurious to them, and that their vital interests require their separation from it, they will have a perfect right to seek separation; and should they do so with reasonable patience and due regard for the rights and interests of those they leave behind, we shall feel bound to urge and insist that their wishes be gratified—their demand conceded.

During the session of the South Carolina convention, Greeley, in his issue of December 7th, as if to afford arguments to strengthen the Southern people in their opposition and to encourage them to be prompt in their action, says: If it (the Declaration of Independence) justifies these cession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not some one attempt to show wherein and why? For our own part, while we deny the right of slaveholders to hold slaves against the will of the latter, we cannot see how 20,000,000 of people can rightfully hold 10,000,000, or even 5,000,000 in a detested Union with them by military force.

In the same issue of Mr. Greeley's paper we read the following: If seven or eight contiguous States shall present themselves authentically at Washington, saying: We hate the Federal Union; we have drawn from it; we give you the choice between acquiescing in our secession and arranging amicably all incidental questions on the one hand and attempting to subdue us on the other, we could not stand up for coercion, for subjugation, for we do not think it would be just. We hold the right of self-government even when invoked in behalf of those who deny it to others. So much for the question of principle.

After the Confederate government had been organized and its whole machinery in active operation and it had taken its place among the nations, Mr. Greeley endorsed its action in no ambiguous words. He said: We have repeatedly said, and we once more insist, that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that Governments derive their just powers from consent of the governed, is sound and just; and that if the slave States, the cotton States or the Gulf States only, choose to form an independent nation, they have a clear moral right to do so. Whenever it shall be clear that the great body of Southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it, we will do our best to forward their views.

Nor was the New York Tribune alone, for the whole New York press and prominent journals and able editors of Republican papers all over the North coincided with these views. Wayward sisters, go in peace, was the cry on every hand, echoed from the lips of the general of the army, with the refrain uttered by the eminent Republican leader, Salmon P. Chase: The South is not worth fighting for; let them alone.

I give a few quotations from some of the other leading journals. Did space allow, these might be multiplied almost ad infinitum.

From the New York Herald, November 23, 1860.—The Disunion Question—A Conservative Reaction in the South.—We publish this morning a significant letter from Governor Letcher, of Virginia, on the subject of the present disunion excitement in the South, Southern constitutional rights, Northern State acts of nullification, and the position of Virginia in this crisis. ... To this end would it not be well for the conservative Union men of the city of New York to make a demonstration—a Northern movement of conciliation, concession and harmony? Coercion in any event is out of the question. A Union held together by the bayonet would be nothing better than a military despotism. Conciliation and harmony, through mutual concessions, in a reconstruction of the fundamental law, between the North and South, will restore and perpetuate the Union contemplated by the fathers. So now that the conservative men of the South are moving, let the Union men of the North second their endeavors, and let New York, as in the matter of the compromises of 1850, lead the way.

The following is from the New York Times of December 3, 1860: By common consent, moreover, the most prominent and tangible point of offense seems to be the legislation growing out of the fugitive slave law. Several of the Northern States have passed personal-liberty bills with the alleged intent to prevent the return of fugitive slaves to their masters. From Union men in every quarter of the South come up the most earnest appeals to the Northern States to repeal these laws. Such an act, we are assured, would have a powerful effect in disarming the disunion clamor in nearly all the Southern States and in promoting the prospects of a peaceful adjustment of all pending differences.

The next day, December 4th, the New York Times published another article, in which it said: Mr. Weed has stated his opinion of the crisis thus: 1. There is imminent danger of a dissolution of the Union. 2. The danger originated in the ambition and cupidity of men who desire a Southern despotism and in the fanatic zeal of the Northern abolitionists who seek the emancipation of slaves regardless of consequences. 3. The danger can only be averted by such moderation and forbearance as will draw out, strengthen and combine the Union sentiment of the whole country. Each of these statements will command general assent. The only question likely to arise relates to the practical measures by which the moderation and forbearance can be displayed.

After Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated, the Commercial, the leading Republican paper of Ohio, in March, 1861, said: We are not in favor of blockading the Southern coast. We are not in favor of retaking by force the property of the United States now in possession of the seceders. We would recognize the existence of a government formed of all the slaveholding States and attempt to cultivate amicable relations with it.

I have shown that not only were the Southern people sustained in their actions leading to secession by the conservative element of the North, as voiced in their daily and weekly papers, but they were given to understand that they had nothing to hope for from the party about to assume the views of the government. Judge Chase made a speech before the Peace congress in which he declared unequivocally that the power being theirs, they would assuredly use it. The assaults on the Constitution were to culminate in the overthrow, at least, of its guarantees to the Southern people. Here is what he said:

The result of the national canvass, recently terminated in the election of Mr. Lincoln, has been spoken of by some as the effect of a sudden impulse or of some irregular excitement of the popular mind; and it has been somewhat confidently asserted that, upon reflection and consideration, the hastily formed opinions which brought about that election will be changed. ... I cannot take this view of the result of the presidential election. I believe, and the belief amounts to absolute conviction, that the election must be regarded as a triumph of principles cherished in the hearts of the people of the free States. . . . We have elected him (Mr. Lincoln). After many years of earnest advocacy and of severe trial we have achieved the triumph of that principle. By a fair and unquestioned majority we have secured that triumph. Do you think we, who represent this majority, will throw it away? Do you think the people will sustain us if we undertake to throw it away? I must speak to you plainly, gentlemen of the South. It is not in my heart to deceive you. I therefore tell you explicitly that if we of the North and West would consent to throw away all that has been gained in the recent triumph of our principles, the people would not sustain us, and so, the consent would avail you nothing.

I have made quite a wide digression and have devoted considerable space to the endeavor to reproduce the sentiments prevailing among the most intellectual and patriotic leaders of the Northern States of the Union on the subject of State rights up to the very outbreak of hostilities.

In obedience to the act of the legislature, on December 6th, Governor Moore issued the proclamation ordering an election to be held on December 24th. The convention met on January 7, 1861, in the hall of representatives at Montgomery. Of the 100 men composing this body, many afterward proved their devotion to their State on the battlefield and in legislative halls, and some of them now hold high posts of honor in the reconstructed Union.

The Rev. Basil Manly, ex-president of the State university, opened the proceedings with a touching and eloquent prayer:

Almighty Father, Maker of Heaven and Earth; King eternal, immortal, invisible; the only wise God! We adore Thee, for Thou art God, and besides Thee there is none else; our Fathers' God and our God! We thank Thee that Thou hast made us men, endowed with reason, conscience and speech; capable of knowing, loving and serving Thee! We thank Thee for Thy Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, our only Mediator and Redeemer! We thank Thee for Thy word of truth, our guide to eternal life. We thank Thee for civil government, ruling in Thy fear; and we especially thank Thee that Thou didst reserve this fair portion of the earth so long undiscovered, unpolluted with the wars and the crimes of the old world, that Thou mightest here establish a free government and a pure religion. We thank Thee that Thou hast allotted us our heritage here, and hast brought us upon it at such a time as this. We thank Thee for all the hallowed memories connected with the establishment of the independence of Colonies, and their sovereignty as States, and with the formation and maintenance of our government, which we had devoutly hoped might last, unperverted and incorruptible, as long as the sun and moon endure.

Oh, our Father, we have striven as an integral part of this great Republic, faithfully to keep our solemn covenants in the Constitution of our country; and our conscience doth not accuse us of having failed to sustain our part in the civil compact. Lord of all the families of the earth, we appeal to Thee to protect us in the land Thou hast given us, the Institution Thou hast established, the rights Thou hast bestowed. And now, in our troubles, besetting us like great waters round about, we, Thy dependent children, humbly entreat Thy fatherly notice and care. Grant to Thy servants now assembled, as the direct representatives of the people of this State, all needful grace and wisdom for their peculiar and great responsibilities at this momentous crisis. Give them a clear perception of their duties as the embodiment of the people; impart to them an enlightened, mature and sanctified judgment in forming every conclusion; a steady, Heaven-directed purpose and will in attaining every right end. Save them from the disturbing influences of error, of passion, prejudice and timidity; from divided and conflicting counsels; give them one mind, and one way and let that be the mind of Christ. If Thou seest them ready to go wrong, interpose Thy heavenly guidance and restraint. If slow and reluctant to execute what duty and safety require, quicken and urge them forward. Let patient inquiry and candor pervade every discussion; let calm, comprehensive and sober wisdom shape every measure and direct every vote; let all things be done in Thy fear and with a just regard to their whole duty toward God and toward man. Preserve them in health, in purity, in peace; and cause that their session may promote the maintenance of equal rights, of civil freedom and good government; may promote the welfare of man, and the glory of Thy name. We ask all through Jesus Christ our Lord: Amen.

The delegates differed widely in their views as to the manner of procedure. Some were elected upon a platform, hereinafter quoted, which averred that it was the first duty to use all honorable exertions to secure our rights in the Union. These had every reason to believe that they represented the majority of the people of the State. Others were sent instructed to secede at once; and these were found to make a majority of barely one. The whole course of the convention furnished a grand and glorious example of the dignity, moderation and self-sacrifice befitting the lofty patriotism of men whose whole souls were loyally devoted to their beloved State. With perhaps one exception, there was no harsh criticism, no impugning the motives nor questioning the patriotism of those differing on subjects of vital importance.

While opposing the ordinance for the immediate withdrawal of Alabama from the Union, one of the most distinguished of Alabama's sons but voiced the sentiments of the minority when he said:

I will not at this time express any argument of opposition I may entertain toward the ordinance of secession .... I meet here a positive, enlightened and unflinching majority. I have respect for them, and I despair of being able to move them. In times like these, when neighboring States are withdrawing, one by one, from the Union, I cannot get my consent to utter a phrase which might be calculated, in the slightest degree, to widen the breaches at home. My opposition to the ordinance of secession will be sufficiently indicated by my vote; that vote will be recorded in the book; that book will take up its march for posterity; and the day is not yet come that is to decide on which part of the page of that book will be written the glory or the shame of this day.

It is important to the State that you of the majority should be right, and that I should be wrong. However much personal gratification I might feel hereafter in finding that I was right on this great question and that you were wrong, that gratification would, indeed, be to me a poor consolation in the midst of a ruined and desolated country. Therefore, as the passage of the ordinance of secession is the act by which the destiny of Alabama is to be controlled, I trust that you are right and that I am wrong. I trust that God has inspired you with His wisdom, and that, under the influence of this ordinance, the State of Alabama may rise to the highest pinnacle of national grandeur.

To show, sir, that the declarations I now make are not forced by the exigencies of this hour, I read one of the resolutions from the platform upon which I was elected to this convention: Resolved, That we hold it to be our duty, first, to use all honorable exertions to secure our rights in the Union, and if we should fail in this, we will maintain our rights out of the Union; for, as citizens of Alabama, we owe our allegiance first to the State; and we will support her in whatever course she may adopt.

Thus, Mr. President, you will observe that the course I now take is the result of the greatest deliberation, having been matured before I was a candidate for a seat in this convention; and there is a perfect understanding on this subject between me and my constituents. It but remains for me to add, that when your ordinance passes through the solemn forms of legislative deliberation, and receives the sanction of this body, I shall recognize it as the supreme law of the land; my scruples will fall to the ground; and that devotion, which I have heretofore, through the whole course of my public life, given to the Union of the States, shall be concentrated in my allegiance to the State of Alabama.

Another said: I have opposed secession as long as opposition was of any avail. Now that the ordinance will pass, as a patriot, I feel bound to take the side of my native State in any contest which might grow out of it. I will vote against the ordinance.

On the 11th of January, the secession of Alabama from the Federal Union was accomplished. I give the full text of the act:

An Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Alabama and other States united under the compact styled The Constitution of the United States of America.

Whereas, The election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and VicePresi-dent of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security; therefore,

Be it declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama in convention assembled, That the State of Alabama now withdraws, and is hereby withdrawn from the Union known as the United States of America, and henceforth ceases to be one of said United States, and is, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and independent State.

Be it further declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama in convention assembled, That all the powers over the territory of said State, and over the people thereof, heretofore delegated to the government of the United States of America, be, and they are hereby withdrawn from said government, and are hereby resumed and vested in the people of the State of Alabama.

Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri be, and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama by their delegates in convention on the 4th day of February, A. D. 1861, at the city of Montgomery in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security.

And be it further resolved, That the president of this convention be, and is hereby instructed to transmit forthwith, a copy of the foregoing preamble, ordinance and resolution to the governors of the several States named in said resolutions.

Done by the people of the State of Alabama in convention assembled at Montgomery, on this, the 11th day of January, A. D. 1861.

During December and January, Governor Moore had taken possession of Forts Morgan and Gaines and the arsenal at Mount Vernon. The forts were strongly garrisoned; and when the ordinance of secession was passed, the State was full of volunteers, busily drilling and preparing for hostilities.

Col. Tennent Lomax commanded the Second regiment of Alabama militia, which had been organized soon after the John Brown raid, and his were the first troops of Alabama to take position in preparing for the great struggle. After two months this regiment was disbanded and Colonel Lomax was put in command of the Third Alabama.

By October 7, 1861, the State had furnished fully 27,000 men to the Confederate cause, many of them being mere boys, and most of them drawn from the very flower of the land. There were sixty Alabama regiments of infantry, thirteen of cavalry, six battalions and twenty batteries, besides many companies from Alabama consolidated with those from other States in Confederate regiments, five of these being cavalry. Many of the regiments were commanded by veterans of the Mexican war, and some were led by officers fresh from West Point. Before the close of 1863, nearly 9,000 of these soldiers had been killed or had died of wounds, camp diseases and exposure.

Alabama, which was the cradle of the Confederacy, was also its grave; for on her soil was fought, at Fort Tyler, April 16, 1865, the last bloody conflict of the war.

Early in 1862, Tennessee being in the possession of the Federals, the northern counties of Alabama were harassed by continuous raids. In April, Huntsville was occupied by General Mitchel and Colonel Turchin. Indignities of all kinds were heaped upon the defenseless citizens, until General Mitchel was replaced by a more humane and generous commander in the person of General Buell. The Federals were driven back for a time by Bragg's advance into Kentucky, but they soon returned. In the fall of 1862, a spirited fight, principally with artillery, took place at Little Bear creek, near Tuscumbia, between General Sweeny and General Roddey, and the invaders were driven back to Corinth. Later on, Roddey's troops handsomely engaged the Federals at Barton Station, and again drove them back. In April, 1863, Forrest and Roddey fought Dodge's column at Brown's Ferry and repulsed him; but the Federal leader on his retreat destroyed everything within reach and left the beautiful valley a scene of utter desolation.

Leaving Roddey in possession of Brown's Ferry, Forrest started in pursuit of Streight, who was advancing on Rome. Then followed one of the most thrilling and brilliant campaigns of the war. The Federals were overtaken in the lower part of Morgan county, and after a desperate fight of three hours, were driven back into Blount county with a heavy loss of men and baggage. The pursuit was continued and the retreat of the Federals became a rout. They made several desperate stands but were unable to rally their demoralized columns. On, through Blount and Etowah counties, rushed pursuers and pursued, scarcely stopping for food or rest until on May 2d, they rested for the night near Turkeytown, Cherokee county. Forrest, who had only 500 men, by his skillful maneuvers so magnified the appearance of his forces as to secure the surrender of Streight's whole command, numbering 1,466, besides a detachment of 230 men on their way to destroy Rome.

In January, 1864, the condition in northern Alabama was such as to evoke an appeal to the war department by the congressional delegation of the State. It is here quoted in full:

The undersigned, senators and representatives from the State of Alabama, respectfully invite the attention of the Honorable Secretary of War to the consideration of a few suggestions relative to the present condition of North Alabama, and the necessity of permanently holding the south side of the Tennessee river in that State.

You are aware that the enemy now claim and hold all the country in said State north of said river; that river, running through the entire width of the State from east. to west, is both deep and wide, difficult to be crossed by an enemy, and is now the dividing line between us and our foes. Brigadier-General Roddey, with his command, is guarding a portion of the south side of the river; but to enable him to do so more effectually, and to protect the country from the enemy at Corinth, Miss., and also to draw supplies for our army from Middle Tennessee, which he is expected to do, he will require a much larger force than he now has under his command. A glance at the map of the country will satisfy any one that if the raiding parties of the enemy be permitted to cross the river, there is no natural barrier to prevent him from sweeping as low down the country as the Alabama river, penetrating that region of the State in which are located the mining and manufacturing establishments now getting into successful operation, and which it is believed are and will continue to be of great benefit to our cause.

To protect our people against such calamity as would result from the incursions of the enemy, we deem it of the utmost importance that General Roddey's command be retained in its present locality, and that he be permitted to increase his force from the adjacent country and from the region within the line of the enemy, and that he have returned to his brigade five companies of Alabama troops now under the command of Major-General Forrest. These companies were all raised by General Roddey, mostly within the enemy's lines and who entered the service expecting to continue under his command. They are very anxious to be restored to General Roddey's brigade, and we understand that General Forrest would not object to such restoration. These five companies are commanded respectively by Captains Steele, Moore, Barr, Warren and Hansell. From these sources we think that General Roddey will strengthen his command sufficiently to protect our people against the raids of the enemy, coming either across the Tennessee river or from the direction of Corinth. We think he will also be enabled to draw supplies of bacon, beef, cattle, hogs, grain, and leather from Middle Tennessee, in larger quantities than heretofore, though he has already drawn much in that way. Besides this, his position is such that should opportunity offer he could fall upon the enemy's communication with Chattanooga and do him serious damage.

Again, should the enemy be permitted to take possession of the country south of the Tennessee river, he will not find it difficult to extend his line to the Warrior and perhaps to the Alabama river, without meeting with serious opposition, but would, on the contrary, receive great encouragement in the mountain region in our State, where there is unfortunately in some parts a disaffected population.

In view of what is above set forth, we hope the Honorable Secretary of War will permit the necessary increase of General Roddey's force. We believe that by so doing the interest of the whole country would be greatly advanced