To My Constituents of the Counties of Randolph and Alamance:
On the 28th of February next you are called upon, by the
question of a an act of the General Assembly, by your vote to declare whether
or not you want a State Convention, restricted to the consideration of our
National Affairs; and also, at the same time, to vote for delegates for said
Convention, in case a majority of the whole State shall call it. The Act
provides that the action of the Convention shall have no validity until
ratified by a vote of the people. I voted against this act because neither the Constitution of the United States, nor of
this State, contemplates any such convention, and because I can see no way by
which it can do any good, and I fear it may do much mischief. Such a convention
is a modern invention of South Carolina, to bring about a sort of legalized
revolution. It has been adopted in most of the Southern States. All its original
advocates were disunionists. Wherever such a convention has assembled, it has
asserted the power to sever the State from the Union, and declare it an independent
government. Under my oath to support the Constitution of the United
States, I could not vote to call a convention to overthrow that
instrument. I thought it improper for the General Assembly to ask you whether
you want an unconstitutional Convention. What can it do o lt can do nothing
only as a revolutionary body. Everybody looks for a remedy for our national troubles,
to an amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Fifth Article of
the Constitution of the United States prescribes two modes of amendment. I give
you the words:
“The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution; or on the application of the
Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States shall call a convention for
proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid, for all intents
and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratifical by the Legislatures
of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof,
as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”
Our wise fathers did not intend that the great fundamental law—the
Constitution—should be lightly altered. If bare majorities of the popular vote
could have altered it, a written Constitution would have been idle.
You will see that there are two constitutional modes of
amendment. Congress has been endeavoring to agree on amendments. There is
little prospect that two-thirds of both houses can agree on anything. The
members were all elected as partizans. Many of them have indulged in
crimination and recrimination in mutual abuse of each other till they are not
in the temper to act as patriots and statesmen. They have become
excited—excited men rarely act prudently and wisely. The other mode of
amendment has not been tried. Shall we not try all constitutional modes of
amendment before we resort to strange and unconstitutional modes? That other
mode seems peculiarly adapted to our present condition. Let a National
Convention be called. Surely two-thirds of the State will join in such a call.
If called, it is hoped wise and discreet men, not men lately engaged in party
strife, will be called to fill it. Can anybody doubt that such an assembly
could compose the National commotions. I do not doubt it. The provision for
such a convention, in common with all their works, shows the forecast and
wisdom of our fathers. In such an assembly, composed of calm and prudent men,
all sections could be heard, could interchange views, each could make some
concessions to the feelings and prejudices of others, the same sort of
concession we all have to make to each other in religion, morals, and
everything else, which makes civilized society.
They would agree on a basis of settlement. In all the States
excepting South Carolina, perhaps in a few other Southern States, the people
still cherish a love for the name of Washington and for the Union. The doings
of such a convention would be likely to be heartily ratified by three-fourths
of the States. At all events let no one break up this great Union till we have
fully tried all constitutional modes of amendment.
If the proposed State Convention does what its most ardent
advocates desire it to do, it will be what all conventions south of us have
done—declare the State out of the Union and an independent State. Every
artifice will be employed to make you believe that a convention is to be
called to save the Union. Believe it not. It is true, many members who
are Union men voted for submitting it to a vote of the people whether they
would have a convention or not, throwing upon you, with little time to
consider, a responsibility which I think they should have met themselves. A
majority refused to pass an amendment allowing you to endorse on your tickets
whether you are for Union or disunion. It will be said that the convention can
do no harm since whatever it may do will have no validity till ratified by you.
The disunion leaders boldly maintain that the Legislature can not restrict the
convention, that it may pass whatever ordinance it pleases, regardless of the
restraints attempted to be imposed upon it by the Act of Assembly; and that it
may, or may not, at its pleasure, submit its action to the people for ratification.
If war begins it will probably be brought on during the sitting of the
convention.
It is now the policy of disunionists to postpone hostilities until President
Buchanan goes out and President Lincoln comes in. They will probably court a
fight as soon as Lincoln takes the reins. If war shall have actually commenced
before the convention closes its session, and an ordinance of secession be
passed, it is to be feared that its action will not be referred to the people
for ratification. Not one of the five States which seceded, though acting under
no emergency, has submitted its action to the people for ratification. We have
not yet exhausted constitutional remedies. We can not have exhausted them
before this convention shall assemble. Believe not those who may tell you this
convention is called to save the Union. It is called to destroy it.
If you desire to preserve the Union vote “No Convention,” and at the same time,
be careful for whom you vote as delegates.
When we shall have seen what the Commissioners shall effect, who are to meet in
Washington on the 4th of February, to look for a remedy for the National
disturbances, when we shall have called for a National Convention and it shall
be refused, or shall have failed to accomplish a pacification, it will be time
enough to resort to revolution. I think that those only should vote for a
convention who regard disunion as the only remedy for the disease of the times.
I have felt it due to you to present this hasty explanation
of my views, on a momentous question on which you are called upon to vote with
such extraordinary haste.
To go into a discussion of the ground on which the
disunionists claim that we ought to dissolve the Union, would require more time
than I could properly withdraw from my legislative duties. I content myself
with saying that I have carefully read nearly all the debates in Congress, and
I see no sufficient reason for abandoning the counsels of the Father of his
Country, and the Government under which we have become the freest and most
powerful nation of the earth, and launching, probably through civil war, upon
the dark sea of experiment.
JoNAThAN WorTh.
January 31, 1860 [sic]
SOURCES: “Circular,” Fayetteville
Semi-Weekly Observer, Fayetteville, North Carolina, published February 7,
1861, p. 2; J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton,
Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 129-33
