not disposed to allow them what they believed to be their plain rights. The State seceded. We went out to save slavery. Other States followed the example of South Carolina. The Confederacy was formed, and its Constitution showed that the saving of slavery was the common purpose of all the Southern States. Slavery was made the cornerstone of the new government. The result was what any man ought to have expected: it was not reasonable to suppose the North would allow a disruption of the Federal Union without war. The whole matter was referred to that tribunal. It was decided against us. Shall we try the issue again? Who is so mad as to even dream we could be more successful than we have been already? We first failed at the ballot-box, and now we have failed on the battle-field. Nothing remains for us but to come forward and meet the new issue. We must put it in the Constitution that slavery is dead, and that we will never attempt to revive it. Unless we do that, we shall have no Legislature. I don't presume to speak by authority, I only take cognizance of the fact that the case has been tried in the last possible tribunal, and has been decided against us, and I see that we must now submit, whether it be easy or painful for us to do so. Shall we obstinately, persistently, and stubbornly refuse to acquiesce? Is that the part of wisdom? I don't know how far the conqueror may go with his victory. There have been cases in which whole peoples were swept from the face of the earth: is that what we covet? The war has made the North victor: is it remarkable that the victors should fix the terms of our restoration to political rights? They have done no more than we expected. We said in all our speeches at the beginning that slavery was in danger; that if the dominant party succeeded in their efforts, slavery would be destroyed. They succeeded at the ballot-box, and we then made the issue on the battle-field. We were defeated there as we had been elsewhere, and the institution

of slavery is hopelessly destroyed. Now the conqueror makes his terms, abolish slavery by your own enactment, declare that it shall never be re-established, treat your freed people well, popularize your Constitution. Are these terms hard? Might they not have been much harder? Are they not, on the whole, very liberal? We are to retain nearly all our civil rights and most of our property other than slaves: might we not have fared much worse? It may be hard in our judgment to concede these terms; but what is it in their judgment? If we fail to do our duty according to their judgment, what will be the consequence? Do we covet military rule as the chief good? There have been states in which military governors made it their duty, if not their pleasure, to break the spirit of the people are we anxious for such authority over us? If we reject the boon now offered us, and I tell you it is a boon for a subjugated people to be allowed the restoration of most of their personal and political rights, if we reject this, what then? Let gentlemen consider. I refer you to the speech of the Honorable Thaddeus Stevens, recently made. I know him as a man of great ability, and as a leader among the radicals. He proposes to confiscate the property of seventy thousand leading men in the South to pay the national war debt; and if the radicals were in power, I don't doubt but that some such policy would prevail. We seem to forget where we stand; we forget that we made the war and have been beaten; we forget that our conquerors have the right to dictate terms to us. And I tell you, it is to the good favor of Andrew Johnson that our terms are no worse, nay, are so liberal. He is the dike between us and the waves of Northern fanaticism. Let us be wise men. Let us strengthen his hands by graceful and ready acquiescence in the results of the war. So shall we strengthen ourselves, and soon bring again to our loved State the blessings of peace and civil rule.

Mr. Dunovant, of Edgefield District, denied that the war

was on the question of slavery. It was waged in the interests of State rights. We were whipped, and the issue on that question is forever settled. But I deny the right of any one to dictate to us in respect to matters not in issue in the war. I deny that slavery is abolished. The relation of master and slave is disrupted, but that relation returns as soon as you restore the civil authority. I will not admit that we are rightfully under military rule; the President has no warrant in the Constitution for keeping a standing army among us, and I will not submit my will to him in this matter. I don't mean to be understood as opposing the abolition of slavery, but I think it is the business of the Legislature and not of this Convention.

Mr. McGowan, of Abbeville District, said one of the chief things for which the Convention was called was to declare the abolition of slavery. He asserted as a historical fact, that the war was forced upon the South, but did not care to argue the point now. The war left us in the dust, it put us at the mercy of the North. The conqueror had the right to prescribe the conditions of our restoration to civil and political rights. These conditions I accept in all fidelity, in all good faith, in all sincerity, with one condition in return, that we are hereafter to be left political masters in the State. We must be left free to legislate for all the people here, white or black, otherwise I would accept martyrdom before I would acquiesce in the demand made upon us respecting slavery.

The discussion on the general subject rested here, and the Blair substitute was tabled with only two or three dissenting voices.

A two hours' wrangle then ensued as to the phraseology which should be adopted to gain the desired end. The various propositions on which votes were taken during this debate were the following:

From the Committee on Ordinances, Mr. T. N. Dawkins,

of Union District, chairman: "Slavery having been actually destroyed by the military force of the United States, it is hereby declared that slavery no longer exists in the State of South Carolina, and that all persons heretofore held as slaves are free; and it is further declared and ordained that slavery shall not again be established in this State, but involuntary servitude may be adjudged by the General Assembly as a punishment for crime." The vote in Convention on this form of words—it being the aforementioned order of the day was 46 Yeas to 61 Nays.

From the Committee on General Amendments to the Constitution, Mr. C. M. Dudley, of Marlboro District, chairman: Slavery having ceased to exist in this State, it shall not hereafter be re-established or permitted." The vote of the Convention on accepting this phraseology was 35 Yeas to 72 Nays.

Substitute proposed by John A. Inglis, of Chesterfield District: "Slavery is hereafter and forever prohibited in this State." On the question of adopting this form, the vote was 25 Yeas to 80 Nays.

Substitute proposed by Rev. Dr. James P. Boyce, of Greenville District: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall ever be re-established in this State." This was also rejected by a vote of 45 Yeas to 58 Nays.

It will be judged from this record of votes that the Convention was determined that it should appear in the Constitution that slavery was not abolished by the voluntary action of the State.

Judge Lesesne, of Charleston, would not stultify the State. of South Carolina by leaving it possible for any one to suppose that, after four years of such devastating war as we have known, she did this thing of her own accord.

Mr. Dudley could see no necessity for attempting to say

E

through what agency slavery had been lost. He thought there was no occasion to use language that might be offensive. Moreover, it was possible that the condition of slavery might be re-established as a punishment for crime; and he would not leave the purpose of the Convention with regard to this matter in any doubt.

Judge Frost thought it ought to be understood by this time that South Carolina was not omnipotent; and that there were some things she could not do, one of these being to re-establish slavery.

Colonel Rion said he did all he could for the South while the war lasted, and was now thoroughly whipped; yet he was not afraid to declare the historical fact that slavery had been destroyed by the Federal government.

Mr. Melton declared that he would oppose all amendments that claimed to recite the historical fact, for the Constitution is not intended as a text-book on history.

Chancellor Inglis would also vote against such amendments, because a Constitution should simply enunciate general principles: history was n't at all likely to lose or forget the facts.

General McGowan asked if there were ten men in the Convention who would favor the abolition of slavery as an independent proposition aside from the events of the last four years.

Mr. Dudley responded that there was need to remind the Convention that they were suppliants for mercy, though he believed that proper self-respect, aside from all other considerations, demanded that they should abstain from the use of needless words.

General McGowan retorted that he would not vote for the proposition at all, unless it recited the truth and the whole truth.

Rev. Dr. Boyce said it seemed to him that the Convention should have respect for the dignity of the work it was doing