That in this free government*all white men should have the right to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis on the original]; that the slavery of the African race, as it exists in these states, is mutually beneficial to both attachment and freedom, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of humanity and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our section enemies, would lead to inevitable disasters on both and desolation on the fifteen slave-owning states. The public law of civilized nations requires that each state prevent its citizens or subjects from committing acts that harm the peace and security of another state, and seeks to incite insurrection or reduce the security or disturb the tranquility of its neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations. The term secession was used as early as 1776. South Carolina threatened separation when the Continental Congress attempted to tax all colonies based on a census of the total population that would include slaves. Secession, in this case and throughout the pre-war period, meant the assertion of minority interests against a majority perceived as hostile or indifferent. Secession was a source of concern for some members of the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in 1787. In theory, secession was closely linked to Whig thought, who claimed the right to revolution against a despotic government. Algernon Sidney, John Locke and the men of the British Commonwealth debated this issue, and it played a leading role in the American Revolution. The new Constitution has always reassured all the delicate issues related to our particular institutions – African slavery as it exists among us – the negro`s own status in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution […] The general opinion of men of that epoch [revolutionary period] was that the institution [slavery] in the order of Providence would somehow be transitory and would disappear… Our new government is based exactly on opposing ideas; its foundations are laid, its foundations rest on the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is its natural and normal state.
The Georgian people, who have severed their political ties with the US government, are presenting to their allies and the world the causes that led to the separation. Over the past decade, we have had many serious grounds for complaints against our non-slave Confederate States regarding the issue of African slavery. They have sought to weaken our security, disturb our internal peace and tranquility, and have consistently refused to fulfill their explicit constitutional obligations to us with regard to these goods, and by using their power within the Federal Government, they have sought to deprive us of the same enjoyment of the common territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our Confederates has been pursued with all the aggravating circumstances that could arouse the passions and hatred of our people, and in recent years has put the two parts of the Union in a state of de facto civil war. Our people, still bound to the Union by habit and national tradition and opposed to change, hoped that time, reason and reasoning would bring if not reparation, at least the liberation of new insults, wounds and dangers. Recent events have completely dispelled all these hopes and shown the need for separation. Our northern states, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a just warning of our intention not to submit to the rule of the perpetrators of all these injustices and violations, have taken the United States government into their hands by a large majority. The Georgian people, after an equally complete, just and deliberate trial, declared with the same determination that they would not rule over this case. A brief history of the rise, progress and anti-slavery policy and political organization in whose hands the administration of the federal government is committed will fully justify the verdict of the Georgian people. Lincoln`s Party, called the Republican Party, under its current name and organization, is of recent origin. It is accepted that it is an anti-slavery party. While his creed attracts scattered supporters of exploded political heresies, doomed theories in political economy, advocates of trade restrictions, protection, special privileges, waste, and corruption in government administration, the fight against slavery is his mission and goal.
Thanks to anti-slavery, it becomes a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty on the way to the formation of the constitution. While the subordination and political and social inequality of the African race were fully recognized by all, it was obvious that slavery would soon disappear from today`s non-slave states of the first thirteen. The rejection of slavery, then as now, was widespread in these states, and the Constitution was made with direct reference to this fact. But an independent abolitionist party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the government was put in place. The main reason was that the North, even if it was united, could not at any time control the two branches of the legislature. Therefore, such an organization must have led either to complete failure or to the complete overthrow of the government. The material prosperity of the North depended heavily on the federal government; not at all those in the South.
In the early years of the republic, the maritime, commercial and productive interests of the North began to seek profit and expansion at the expense of agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks have sought out and received bonuses to pursue their own business (which goes even further), and $500,000 is now paid to them each year by the Public Treasury. Maritime interests have called for the protection of foreign shipbuilders and competition in coastal trade. Congress granted both motions and, through prohibition laws, gave each of their interests an absolute monopoly on this matter, which they still enjoy today without reduction. Dissatisfied with these important and unfair advantages, they tried to place the legitimate burden of their business on the public as much as possible; They managed to throw the cost of lighthouses, buoys and maintenance of their sailors onto the treasury, and the government now pays more than $2,000,000 a year to support these objects. These commercial and manufacturing interests also managed to exempt their business from paying approximately $7,000,000 per year through postal steam subsidies and reduced postage costs, throwing them into the treasury as a postal shortage. Manufacturing interests entered the same battle from the beginning, constantly calling for government bonuses and special favors. This interest was mainly limited to the non-slave states of the East and Centre. When he exercised these great states, he had great power and influence, and his demands were fully proportional to his power. Producers and miners wisely based their demands on specific facts and reasons rather than general principles, thus mitigating much of the counter-interest`s resistance.
They pleaded for their favor the childhood of their company in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries towards them, the great need for their fabrics in time of war and the need for high tariffs to pay the debts that arose in our war of independence. These reasons prevailed, and for many years they received huge rewards thanks to the general approval of the whole country. Exactly what Madison feared took concrete shape during the partisan struggles of the Washington and Adams administrations. And paradoxically, Madison found herself preoccupied with those who seemed to threaten the separation. In their response to the arbitrary seizure of power in the Aliens and Sedition Laws, Thomas Jefferson and Madison argued for the state to annul this legislation. Jefferson`s response in the Kentucky resolution favored the compact interpretation of the federal Constitution. The Madison resolution in Virginia was much more moderate, but both resolutions were aimed at taking action against laws deemed unconstitutional. The national judiciary, they thought, was full of its opponents. Neither resolution claimed the original sovereignty of States, but both argued for a strict interpretation of the powers listed. During the War of 1812, a federalist majority dissatisfied with New England adopted the theory of the pact and contemplated secession from the Union.