Jonathan Worth to Henry L. Myrover, May 6, 1861

ASHEBORO, May 6, ’61.

I have just got home to stay two days at our court now sitting. Shall return to Raleigh next Wednesday. I enclose receipts for your papers which reached here after I left for Raleigh. My mind became so painfully embarrassed with the condition of our Country that I forgot to call for your papers. I am still painfully impressed with my total impotence to accomplish anything tending to the preservation of our Country from the calamities of civil war. The best chance I see is to present a united front. I shall therefore on to-morrow use whatever of influence I possess to induce our people to volunteer. I shall take this course as the best to bring about peace. I wish I could hope for the re-establishment of as good a government as that we have overthrown. With sorrow I now cooperate and unite with a majority of my State. 

SOURCE: J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 140

Jonathan Worth to Cyrus P. Mendenhall, May 6, 1861

ASHEBORO, May 6, 1861.

Reflection has at last brought me to this conclusion that peace will be preserved, if it can be by any honorable means—and that this is likelier to be attained by unity among ourselves—and determined, united military resistance.

In this view I shall take the stump to-morrow and urge our young men to volunteer.

The painful uncertainty in my mind as to the wisest course to pursue and a deep consciousness that I have not ability to the emergencies of the times, made me determine at one time to resign. I have reconsidered and in fact did so before I left Raleigh.

SOURCE: J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 140-1

Jonathan Worth to Joseph John Jackson, December 17, 1860

RALEigh, Dec. 17, ‘60.

I can not find time to write you as often as I ought to.

To-day the Senate voted 27 to 15 to suspend the rules in order to pass through its 2d and 3d readings a bill offered this morning by Erwin, who is a manly disunionist, not a disunionist under the disguise of secession, authorizing the Gov. to expend $300,000 in buying arms. The reason given for this remarkable precipitancy is that there are reasons to fear that a considerable insurrection is on foot, and secondly, that just now a gun factory offers him the guns at cash prices and payment to be made in State bonds at par. I need not say that such pretext is equally silly. The bill is made the order of the day for 12 to-morrow. It will probably pass its second and third readings. Its real object is to enable the Governor to arm volunteers to aid S. C. The State will soon be involved in war unless, to the great disappointment and mortification of the leaders in this General Assembly, the committee of 33 should make a pacification.

Cass has resigned because B. would not reinforce Ft. Moultrie. This is the report here, fully credited. Cass is too much of a Statesman to connive at the refusal of the President to execute the laws. Lincoln would not be permitted to execute them.

So So. Ca. will become another Paradise—By her cotton will rule the world—Get plenty of cheap negroes from Africa, and we may possibly be allowed to attach ourselves to her as an humble dependency.

Slavery, as Gen. Jackson well predicted, is only a “pretext.” Slavery is doomed if the South sets up a Southern Confederacy. With Canada in effect for her Northern border from the Atlantic to the Pacific—all hating us, it is madness to think of anything else only to cut the throats of the negroes or have our own throats cut.

I am truly sorry that I am a member of this Assembly which I think contains less of patriotism than any like number of men ever assembled in this State since the close of the Revolution.

Nearly half of the Democratic members desire to preserve the Union, but they are the rank and file and will all ultimately follow their leaders—at least, vote for the measures of Avery and Co.—all of which, openly or in disguise, look to a dissolution.

SOURCE: J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 126-7

Remarks of Jonathan Worth on the Proposition to call a Con[ven]tion, in the Senate, January, 1861.*

The proposition of the Senator from Guilford, as I understand it, is to submit it to the vote of the people whether they will have a Convention, altogether unrestricted, without anything in the preamble or body of the resolutions declaratory of the purpose of the calling such Convention. I recognize as the basis of our government the right of the people to govern, and I am therefore willing, if the people desire it, that such a Convention be called, free to consider and act on every principle of government, State or National, with this proviso only, that the action of such Convention shall have no validity until ratified by a vote of the people; but if the bill in any way indicates that the Convention is called to consider our Federal relations, I can not vote for it, because the Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to call no such Convention. Such Conventions have been nowhere called except for the purpose of carrying out secession. I will not discuss this doctrine as a constitutional remedy. This has been sufficiently done. It is sufficient for my present purpose to declare that I regard it as a ruinous heresy, whether the present Union be preserved or a Southern Confederacy be formed. I regard it as the seed of death in any Confederation. A new Republic founded on it would be based on Disintegration. I can therefore vote for no bill which in any way squints toward a recognition of this doctrine.

The only Convention to consider of National affairs, which the General Assembly can constitutionally call, is a Convention provided for in the Fifth Article of the Constitution of the United States to pass on amendments to the Constitution of the United States previously proposed as therein prescribed. Any other Convention called by the General Assembly to consider of National affairs I regard as revolutionary, and I am sure my constituents are not ready for revolution for existing causes.

_______________

* In Worth's writing

SOURCE: J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 128-9

Jonathan Worth: A Resolution.* probably between November 19, 1860 and February 25, 1861

Resolved, That while we recognize the right of the Genl. Government to garrison and defend its forts within our borders, and deem it the duty of the President of the United States to protect and defend said forts against the aggression or adverse occupation of all persons whatsoever; in the present state of affairs we think it highly inexpedient that the general Government exercise such right or make any other military demonstration, tending to civil war.

Resolved, further, That while we earnestly deprecate a military collision between the authorities of the United States and the people or authorities of any State of this Union, we deem it inexpedient to declare, in advance, what part we should take, in the event of such collision, until all the attending circumstances shall be known.

_______________

* This resolution is in Jonathan Worth's writing, and was probably prepared by him during the General Assembly of 1860-61.

SOURCE: J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 129

Jonathan Worth’s Address to People Of Randolph And Alamance, January 31, 1861

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

Jonathan Worth to his Brother,* March 16, 1861

ASHEBORO, March 16th, 1861.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

In your letter of the 8th inst., I was taken a little by surprise. But I now fear to begin to believe that revolution can't be stayed, and if I consulted the dictates of prudence, would, to some extent, yield to the current. I was surprised because the evidence has seemed to me abundant since the vote of La, and N. C. and the adjournment of Congress, the report of the peace convention, and the inaugural, that revolution was arrested. The votes of La. and N. C. raised a wall between the madness of the South and the uncertain turbulence of Va. which neither could pass. The plan of the peace Congress, when duly considered, will be approved by an increased majority both North and South. It is better for all sections and for the whole country than the Crittenden plan, that is, as to the main question—territory; no more territory would be likely to be acquired at all, and if acquired, the slavery question would be settled simultaneously. Congress having adjourned without passing the force bill and without supplying the executive with men or money to wage war, or even to reinforce Fort Sumter, the Prest., as commander-in-chief of the army, would be compelled in a military point of view, and not in a recognition of the right of Secession, to evacuate Ft. Sumter. Lincoln's inaugural breathes peace to any candid mind. Since the final act of Congress, the President's inaugural and the vote of N. C. against convention reached me, I have considered the Revolution arrested. Reaction must soon follow in the United States. I do not know whether the Prest. has ordered the evacuation of Ft. Sumter, but I presume he has because Congress did not furnish him the means of maintaining the occupation, in which I think Congress acted wisely. As to any other fort, still in the occupation of the national troops, which the Prest. can defend with the means at his command, he would make himself contemptible in the estimation of the world if he should voluntarily surrender them. IIe is bound by his oath to protect the public property and execute the laws so far as the legislative power will furnish him the means. I fear you caught a slight singe of gloom from our quondam friend Geo. Davis.¹ I know not how you regard him. You ought not to regard him any longer as a Whig. You have heard Vance's anecdote as to the pet lamb Billy. Say to Davis personally, “Billy.” He has gone over, whatever he may think or say, to Democracy and red Republicanism. Democracy has fought for months with the rope around its neck. Its votaries should now have their coffins made and say their prayers.

Twiggs ought not to be shot. He ought to be hanged and his name for all time to be written in connection and immediately after Benedict Arnold. I am garrulous and will quit.

_______________

* Probably B. G. Worth.

* George Davis, a prominent member of the Wilmington bar, had become a secessionist after the Peace Conference. As a member of the Whig party this change greatly incensed many of the party. He was later Confederate Senator and Attorney General in the Confederate Cabinet.

SOURCE: J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 133-5

Jonathan Worth to proably Joseph John Jackson [fragment]*, after December 3, 1860

The late election of Clingman² to the U. S. Senate awakens painful reflections in every lover of Union, whose patriotism raises him above the influences of party. He has been long known as a sympathizer with the Disunionists of S. C.—originally a Henry Clay Whig–reviling Democracy more than his leader, of late years he got his eye on his present position, abandoning all his early principles and became a Democrat of the straightest order. At the opening of this Congress, upon the reading of President Buchanan's message, he was the first to condemn it on account of its pacific tone. He has long been known as favoring Disunion.

In the election for members of the present Legislature, it has often been asserted in debate here and in no instance denied, so far as I have heard, that every member, while a Candidate, professed devotion to the Union and declared the election of Lincoln, which we all expected would happen, would not justify breaking up the Union. Since then no one pretends that any new cause of offense to the South has occurred. It is well known that nearly all the unpretending Democratic members were at heart what they had professed to be before their constituents— Union men. But their leaders had doubtless joined the Southern league. Avery,³ Hall,⁴ Erwin,⁵ Street,⁶ Person,⁷ Hoke,⁸ Bachelor,⁹ Bridgers,¹⁰ in the first caucus, assumed the lead and demanded the decapitation of Holden, because he was known to be for Union. The rank and file were astounded. When required to abandon their old and approved leader, one who was known to have been the very heart of Democracy for long years past, the most talented and hitherto the most influential of their party, plain, honest members, gaped in wonder; and very many of them had the moral courage, at first, to oppose their leaders. Many honest Democrats, largely interested in slave property, could not at first understand why a native North Carolinian, himself a slave owner, lately deemed worthy to be Governor and United States Senator and a Union man, was to be superseded by a man lately from England, naturalized last April, without interest in slaves, an avowed Disunionist, a man without social position in Raleigh, where he was best known. The most prositable office in the gift of the General Assembly was the public printing. This first important move of the leaders was carried by a bare majority in Caucus; but being carried the rank and file, true to discipline, came in the next day and voted unanimously for John Spelman for public printer. The leaders next demanded that they should vote for Clingman. Many of the more worthy members

_______________

* This fragment of a letter in Worth's writing was probably to J. J. Jackson.

² Thomas L. Clingman, b. 1812. Whig member of Commons 1835 and 1841. Member of Congress 1843-45, 1847-58. United States Senator 1858-61. In 1850 he became a Democrat. He was a Consederate Brigadier General during the war. In 1875 he was a member of the State Convention.

³ W. W. Avery of Burke.

⁴ Eli W. Hall of New Hanover.

⁵ Marcus Erwin of Buncombe

⁶ Nathaniel H. Street of Craven.

⁷ Saml. J. Person of New Hanover.

⁸ John F. Hoke of Lincoln.

⁹ Jos. B. Batchelor of Warren.

¹⁰ Robt. R. Bridgers of Edgecombe

SOURCE: J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 125-6

Jonathan Worth to Joseph John Jackson, November 29, 1860

RALEIGH, Nov. 29, '60.

You will have seen that all the important elections are over excepting that of Senator. The papers announce that Clingman has received the caucus nomination. I am confident that this is a mistake. On the contrary the understanding here is that the Caucus laid on the table the motion to nominate a Senator. I presume Union Democrats are unwilling to vote for him. I hear that some of them prefer Bedford Brown. I am not in the secrets of those that can control the election, but should not be surprised if Brown should be the man. The Disunion influence here is less potent than it was at the opening of the session. I hope no action will be taken as to our Federal relation before the Christmas holidays and that we shall then adjourn until the inauguration of Lincoln. If he should pledge himself to execute the Fugitive Slave Law, and do it, I care nothing about the question as to Squatter Sovereignty. If he adopt the Southern doctrine that a State may disregard an act of Congress at pleasure and such State should not be coerced—If S. C., for instance, seize the U. S. magazine and refuse to pay duties or seize the public arms in the National Capital Arsenal and he refuse to coerce the obedience—it follows that he ought not to enforce the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law in the nullifying free States——and in that case there is virtually no Union to dissolve; upon this idea we have no government, and it will be expedient to establish one.

SOURCE: J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, Editor, The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth, Volume 1, p. 124