Pittsburgh Post, October 10, 1860
When Mr. Douglas said that all the Breckinridge men were not Disunionists, but that all the Disunionists were Breckinridge men, he thought more of getting off an epigram[m]atic sentence, than he did about stating an actual fact. To our mind there is as much, if not more, of the rampant spirit of disunion in the Black Republican ranks of the North, as there is in the South. And when Mr. Douglas said the Extremists of the South, who sustain Breckinridge, could better fraternize with the Lincoln men than any body else, he uttered, though in a bantering way, a sober truth.
It is simply absurd to say that Disunionism is confined to Southern fire-eaters.—Northern Sectionalism, as manifested by the Black Republican party, is as hostile to the Union, in fact and in purpose, as Southern Sectionalism is now, or ever has been.—Breckinridge claims larger privileges for the South than any other candidate for President; yet Yancey, Keitt &c Co. go far beyond Breckinridge in their sectionalism. On the other hand, Lincoln carries his sectional views as far as the farthest of his dusky supporters. Seward, Giddings, Greeley and the rest, have not gone one whit farther in their Abolition track than Lincoln went in his canvass for Senator against Douglas, and he has boldly declared that he "loves the Abolitionists!"
There is another difference between Northern negro-lovers and Southern nullifiers, which is greatly against the former.—Lincoln and his sectional supporters are not complaining of wrongs done to them at their own homes and firesides, and to their own institutions and property. They do not now, as heretofore, complain of the South for refusing a tariff for protection-that measure they have formally abandoned in their Chicago platform—nor do they cry out that any measure of Southern policy is urged to their especial damage and detriment. But, at the imminent risk of dissolving the Union, these precious hypocrites claim the right to make a code of laws for the South, not only in the States, but in the Territories, which shall control or prohibit slavery. Now, Yancey and Keitt and the worst of that class, do not propose any reform in the internal laws of the free States—they do not presume to tell us how we shall treat our apprentices or workmen, or how much we shall pay them for their labor—they do not prescribe for us any new regulations about our property, nor anything of the kind. They are acting purely on the defensive against Lincoln, and Fred Douglass, and Seward, and Giddings, and all the rest who "revere the memory of John Brown, of Ossawatomie!"
But some simple-minded follower of Lincoln and his managers, will, perhaps, interpose, and tell us that Mr. Lincoln, if elected, will not administer the government against the South—that he is a safe man, &c., &c. What, then, O! Mr. Forcible Feeble, becomes of the "irrepressible conflict," the inauguration of which is claimed by both Seward and Lincoln? The Black Republicans do not want the government so that they can raise the tariff—their Chicago manifesto does not allege this—they do not want power so that they can alter the naturalization laws. Carl S[c]hurz settled that for them. And if they do not want possession of the government for any of those themes, they must either desire it for plunder alone, or for the sake of carrying the "irrepressible conflict" into the very heart of the Southern States from the capital itself. If we believe that Mr. Lincoln means to do justice to the South, nothing is left as a motive for his party, but the desire that they have to clutch the treasury. Will this be reason enough to satisfy the people? Is every national calamity to be dared so that Lincoln and Giddings may fill the offices with men who sympathise with their love for John Brown? God forbid!
If Lincoln were President, and if he were to issue a message containing the doctrines uttered in Illinois while he was a candidate for the Senate, the Union would be endangered from that hour. He cannot administer the federal government on the principles he proclaimed two years ago, and it was the utterance of those very sentiments that attracted to him the love of the abolitionists, and nominated him at Chicago. Will he abandon those views, if chosen President? If he does, he will dissolve the Republican party, which will scatter like a band of foiled marauders. If he does not, we verily believe he will dissolve the Union?
And suppose this terrible catastrophe to happen—in compassing it can he abolish slavery? When he shall have torn these States asunder —and destroyed the internal trade of the country—and provoked a servile war, and flooded the whole North with fugitive blacks—and made all anarchy and blood-shed where peace and prosperity reigned so long—will he, we repeat, will he have abolished slavery? Will he have made the negro the political equal of the white man? We can confidently answer, No!
But if the "irrepressible conflict" is to go on, the disruption of the Union will be no hindrance to its progress. The free States will be bound to carry out their abolition views at the point of the bayonet, and to subjugate the white men of the South, will be the watch-word. The plain duty of those who "revere the memory of John Brown," will be to follow his example and to revenge his death!
All these things must come, if Northern Disunionists shall triumph, and hold fast to their principles when in office. Such is our solemn and sorrowful beliefs. And while we present to our countrymen these gloomy forebodings of the future, we would ask them whether they are willing to run all these risks, to have all these dangers, not to defend their own rights, not to advance their own interests—but for the sake of tyran[n]izing over the people of the South, and for the inciting of murder and bloodshed amongst them?