Download the Full Version of the Ebook with Added Features ebookname.

com

Microeconometrics Using Stata Second Edition

Volume I Cross Sectional and Panel Regression
Models A. Colin Cameron & Pravin K. Trivedi

https://ebookname.com/product/microeconometrics-using-stata-
second-edition-volume-i-cross-sectional-and-panel-
regression-models-a-colin-cameron-pravin-k-trivedi/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookname.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Microeconometrics Using Stata 1st Edition A. Colin Cameron

https://ebookname.com/product/microeconometrics-using-stata-1st-
edition-a-colin-cameron/

ebookname.com

Microeconometrics Using Stata Volume II Nonlinear Models

and Causal Inference Methods Second Edition A. Colin
Csmron
https://ebookname.com/product/microeconometrics-using-stata-volume-ii-
nonlinear-models-and-causal-inference-methods-second-edition-a-colin-
csmron/
ebookname.com

Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel Hierarchical

Models 1st Edition Andrew Gelman

https://ebookname.com/product/data-analysis-using-regression-and-
multilevel-hierarchical-models-1st-edition-andrew-gelman/

ebookname.com

Handbook of Charged Particle Optics 2nd ed Edition Jon

Orloff

https://ebookname.com/product/handbook-of-charged-particle-optics-2nd-
ed-edition-jon-orloff/

ebookname.com
De numeris datis Jordanus De Nemore (Editor)

https://ebookname.com/product/de-numeris-datis-jordanus-de-nemore-
editor/

ebookname.com

McGraw Hill s GRE 2014 Edition Strategies 6 Practice Tests

Test Planner App Dulan

https://ebookname.com/product/mcgraw-hill-s-gre-2014-edition-
strategies-6-practice-tests-test-planner-app-dulan/

ebookname.com

Handbook of Photovoltaic Science and Engineering 2nd

Edition Antonio Luque

https://ebookname.com/product/handbook-of-photovoltaic-science-and-
engineering-2nd-edition-antonio-luque/

ebookname.com

Opening Kailasanatha The Temple in Kanchipuram Revealed in

Time and Space 1st Edition Padma Kaimal

https://ebookname.com/product/opening-kailasanatha-the-temple-in-
kanchipuram-revealed-in-time-and-space-1st-edition-padma-kaimal/

ebookname.com

The Business of WiMAX 1st Edition Deepak Pareek

https://ebookname.com/product/the-business-of-wimax-1st-edition-
deepak-pareek/

ebookname.com
Art and Intellect in the Philosophy of Etienne Gilson 1st
Edition Francesca Aran Murphy

https://ebookname.com/product/art-and-intellect-in-the-philosophy-of-
etienne-gilson-1st-edition-francesca-aran-murphy/

ebookname.com
Microeconometrics Using Stata
Volume I: Cross-Sectional and Panel
Regression Methods
Second Edition

A. COLIN CAMERON
Department of Economics
University of California, Davis, CA
and
School of Economics
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

PRAVIN K. TRIVEDI
School of Economics
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
and
Department of Economics
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
®

A Stata Press Publication

StataCorp LLC
College Station, Texas
 ®

Copyright © 2009, 2010, 2022 by StataCorp LLC

All rights reserved. First edition 2009
Revised edition 2010
Second edition 2022

Published by Stata Press, 4905 Lakeway Drive, College Station, Texas

77845

Typeset in LaTeX2e

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Print ISBN-10: 1-59718-359-8 (volumes I and II)

Print ISBN-10: 1-59718-361-X (volume I)

Print ISBN-10: 1-59718-362-8 (volume II)

Print ISBN-13: 978-1-59718-359-8 (volumes I and II)

Print ISBN-13: 978-1-59718-361-1 (volume I)

Print ISBN-13: 978-1-59718-362-8 (volume II)

ePub ISBN-10: 1-59718-360-1 (volumes I and II)

ePub ISBN-10: 1-59718-363-6 (volumes I)

ePub ISBN-10: 1-59718-364-4 (volumes II)

ePub ISBN-13: 978-1-59718-360-4 (volumes I and II)

ePub ISBN-13: 978-1-59718-363-5 (volumes I)

ePub ISBN-13: 978-1-59718-364-2 (volumes II)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022938057

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

transcribed, in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical,
photocopy, recording, or otherwise—without the prior written permission of
StataCorp LLC.

Stata, , Stata Press, Mata, , and NetCourse are registered trademarks

of StataCorp LLC.

Stata and Stata Press are registered trademarks with the World Intellectual
Property Organization of the United Nations.

NetCourseNow is a trademark of StataCorp LLC.

LaTeX2e is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society.

Other brand and product names are registered trademarks or trademarks of

their respective companies.
Contents

Preface to the Second Edition

Preface to the First Edition

1 Stata basics
1.1 Interactive use
1.2 Documentation
1.3 Command syntax and operators
1.4 Do-files and log files
1.5 Scalars and matrices
1.6 Using results from Stata commands
1.7 Global and local macros
1.8 Looping commands
1.9 Mata and Python in Stata
1.10 Some useful commands
1.11 Template do-file
1.12 Community-contributed commands
1.13 Additional resources
1.14 Exercises
2 Data management and graphics
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Types of data
2.3 Inputting data
2.4 Data management
2.5 Manipulating datasets
2.6 Graphical display of data
2.7 Additional resources
2.8 Exercises
3 Linear regression basics
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Data and data summary
3.3 Transformation of data before regression
3.4 Linear regression
3.5 Basic regression analysis
3.6 Specification analysis
3.7 Specification tests
3.8 Sampling weights
3.9 OLS using Mata
3.10 Additional resources
3.11 Exercises
4 Linear regression extensions
4.1 Introduction
4.2 In-sample prediction
4.3 Out-of-sample prediction
4.4 Predictive margins
4.5 Marginal effects
4.6 Regression decomposition analysis
4.7 Shapley decomposition of relative regressor importance
4.8 Difference-in-differences estimators
4.9 Additional resources
4.10 Exercises
5 Simulation
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Pseudorandom-number generators
5.3 Distribution of the sample mean
5.4 Pseudorandom-number generators: Further details
5.5 Computing integrals
5.6 Simulation for regression: Introduction
5.7 Additional resources
5.8 Exercises
6 Linear regression with correlated errors
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Generalized least-squares and FGLS regression
6.3 Modeling heteroskedastic data
6.4 OLS for clustered data
6.5 FGLS estimators for clustered data
6.6 Fixed-effects estimator for clustered data
6.7 Linear mixed models for clustered data
6.8 Systems of linear regressions
6.9 Survey data: Weighting, clustering, and stratification
6.10 Additional resources
6.11 Exercises
7 Linear instrumental-variables regression
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Simultaneous equations model
7.3 Instrumental-variables regression
7.4 Instrumental-variables example
7.5 Weak instruments
7.6 Diagnostics and tests for weak instruments
7.7 Inference with weak instruments
7.8 Finite sample inference with weak instruments
7.9 Other estimators
7.10 Three-stage least-squares systems estimation
7.11 Additional resources
7.12 Exercises
8 Linear panel-data models: Basics
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Panel-data methods overview
8.3 Summary of panel data
8.4 Pooled or population-averaged estimators
8.5 Fixed-effects or within estimator
8.6 Between estimator
8.7 Random-effects estimator
8.8 Comparison of estimators
8.9 First-difference estimator
8.10 Panel-data management
8.11 Additional resources
8.12 Exercises
9 Linear panel-data models: Extensions
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Panel instrumental-variables estimation
9.3 Hausman–Taylor estimator
9.4 Arellano–Bond estimator
9.5 Long panels
9.6 Additional resources
9.7 Exercises
10 Introduction to nonlinear regression
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Binary outcome models
10.3 Probit model
10.4 MEs and coefficient interpretation
10.5 Logit model
10.6 Nonlinear least squares
10.7 Other nonlinear estimators
10.8 Additional resources
10.9 Exercises
11 Tests of hypotheses and model specification
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Critical values and p-values
11.3 Wald tests and confidence intervals
11.4 Likelihood-ratio tests
11.5 Lagrange multiplier test (or score test)
11.6 Multiple testing
11.7 Test size and power
11.8 The power onemean command for multiple regression
11.9 Specification tests
11.10 Permutation tests and randomization tests
11.11 Additional resources
11.12 Exercises
12 Bootstrap methods
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Bootstrap methods
12.3 Bootstrap pairs using the vce(bootstrap) option
12.4 Bootstrap pairs using the bootstrap command
12.5 Percentile-t bootstraps with asymptotic refinement
12.6 Wild bootstrap with asymptotic refinement
12.7 Bootstrap pairs using bsample and simulate
12.8 Alternative resampling schemes
12.9 The jackknife
12.10 Additional resources
12.11 Exercises
13 Nonlinear regression methods
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Nonlinear example: Doctor visits
13.3 Nonlinear regression methods
13.4 Different estimates of the VCE
13.5 Prediction
13.6 Predictive margins
13.7 Marginal effects
13.8 Model diagnostics
13.9 Clustered data
13.10 Additional resources
13.11 Exercises
14 Flexible regression: Finite mixtures and nonparametric
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Models based on finite mixtures
14.3 FMM example: Earnings of doctors
14.4 Global polynomials
14.5 Regression splines
14.6 Nonparametric regression
14.7 Partially parametric regression
14.8 Additional resources
14.9 Exercises
15 Quantile regression
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Conditional quantile regression
15.3 CQR for medical expenditures data
15.4 CQR for generated heteroskedastic data
15.5 Quantile treatment effects for a binary treatment
15.6 Additional resources
15.7 Exercises
A Programming in Stata
A.1 Stata matrix commands
A.2 Programs
A.3 Program debugging
A.4 Additional resources
B Mata
B.1 How to run Mata
B.2 Mata matrix commands
B.3 Programming in Mata
B.4 Additional resources
C Optimization in Mata
C.1 Mata moptimize() function
C.2 Mata optimize() function
C.3 Additional resources
Glossary of abbreviations

References

Author index

Subject index
Tables
2.1 Stata’s numeric storage types
3.1 Postestimation commands
4.1 DID computation example
6.1 OLS and FGLS estimators and their estimated variance
7.1 IV estimators and their asymptotic variances
8.1 Summary of xt commands for linear panel models
13.1 Some estimation commands for linear and nonlinear cross-sectional
models
Figures
1.1 Basic help contents
2.1 A basic scatterplot of log earnings on hours
2.2 A more elaborate scatterplot of log earnings on hours
2.3 Box-and-whisker plots of annual hours for four categories of
educational attainment
2.4 A histogram for log earnings
2.5 The estimated density of log earnings
2.6 Histogram and kernel density plot for log earnings
2.7 Twoway scatterplot and fitted quadratic with confidence bands
2.8 Local constant plot of log earnings against hours
2.9 Local linear and lowess plots of log earnings against hours
2.10 Multiple scatterplots of several variables for each level of education
3.1 Comparison of densities of level and natural logarithm of medical
expenditures
3.2 Residuals plotted against fitted values after OLS regression
3.3 Q–Q plot of residuals against normal and kernel density estimate
4.1 Predictive margins 1) by age and 2) by age and gender
4.2 Predictive margins 1) by age for men and 2) by age for women
5.1 (10) and Poisson(5) draws
5.2 Histogram for one sample of size 30
5.3 Histogram of the 10,000 sample means, each from a sample of size 30
5.4 Halton sequence compared with uniform draws
5.5 statistic density compared with theoretical
6.1 Absolute residuals graphed against and
8.1 Time-series plots of log wage against year and weeks worked against
year for each of the first 20 observations
8.2 Overall scatterplot of log wage against experience using all
observations
8.3 Within scatterplot of log-wage deviations from individual means
against experience deviations from individual means
10.1 Probit model and associated ME
11.1 (5) density compared with 5 times density
11.2 Power curve for the test of against when
takes on the values under and and

11.3 Power curves at test size 0.05 and at sizes 0.05 and 0.10
12.1 Distribution of from pairs percentile- bootstrap
14.1 Finite mixture compared with weighted sum of normal random
variables
14.2 Finite mixture density of three normal distributions
14.3 Component-wise density of fitted values
14.4 Plot of fitted quadratic and quartic models
14.5 Piecewise linear: Single regressor z without and with additional
regressors
14.6 Natural cubic spline and smoothing spline
14.7 Local linear regression using lpoly and npregress kernel
15.1 Quantiles of the dependent variable
15.2 QR and OLS coefficients and confidence intervals for each regressor as
varies from to
15.3 Density of , quantiles of , and scatterplots of and
15.4 Quantile and density plots of log expenditure for those with and
without supplementary insurance
Preface to the Second Edition
Microeconometrics Using Stata, published in December 2008, was written
for Stata 10.1. Microeconometrics Using Stata, Revised Edition, published in
January 2010, was written for Stata 11.0. This second edition is written for
Stata 17.

Whereas the scope and coverage of the preceding editions were

reasonably synchronized with our own Microeconometrics: Methods and
Applications (Cambridge, 2005), this second edition has broader scope in
several respects. We have attempted not only to update our previous
coverage to bring it in line with newer tools in the latest edition of Stata but
also to bring into the book many topics and methods that are now actively
studied and increasingly used in applied microeconometrics. This coverage
includes several topics, listed below, that were not covered in our 2005 text.

This second edition covers over ten years of both enhancements to Stata
and developments in the methods most commonly used in empirical
microeconometrics analysis. The focus of the book remains the use of linear
and nonlinear regression methods for cross-sectional and short panel data. In
particular, we give only short treatment to other features of Stata that are
useful for data analysis such as data management, use within Stata of other
programming languages such as Python, and automated document
preparation. The new edition is much expanded and is split into two
volumes.

The first volume, comprising chapters 1–15 and Stata and Mata
appendixes, focuses on the linear regression model and provides a brief
introduction to nonlinear regression models. This volume is an expanded
version of chapters 1–10, 12–13, and the appendixes of the first and revised
editions. In places, there is greater explanation of underlying methods, and
much of the first volume is intended to be suitable for an advanced
undergraduate course in addition to serving graduate students and
researchers.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
arguments in their application to every new development that they
supplied every logical want in the Northern mind. Republican
orators and newspapers quoted and endorsed, until nearly every
reading mind was imbued with the same sentiments, until in fact the
Northern Democrats, and at all times the Douglas Democrats, were
ready to stand by the flag of the Union. George W. Curtis, in
Harper’s Weekly (a journal which at the time graphically illustrated
the best Union thoughts and sentiments), in an issue as late as
January 12th, 1872, well described the power of Webster’s grand
ability[11] over a crisis which he did not live to see, Mr. Curtis says:—
“The war for the Union was a vindication of that theory of its
nature which Webster had maintained in a memorably impregnable
and conclusive manner. His second speech on Foot’s resolution—the
reply to Hayne—was the most famous and effective speech ever
delivered in this country. It stated clearly and fixed firmly in the
American mind the theory of the government, which was not, indeed,
original with Webster, but which is nowhere else presented with such
complete and inexorable reason as in this speech. If the poet be the
man who is so consummate a master of expression that he only says
perfectly what everybody thinks, upon this great occasion the orator
was the poet. He spoke the profound but often obscured and dimly
conceived conviction of a nation. He made the whole argument of the
civil war a generation before the war occurred, and it has remained
unanswered and unanswerable. Mr. Everett, in his discourse at the
dedication of the statute of Webster, in the State-House grounds in
Boston in 1859, described the orator at the delivery of this great
speech. The evening before he seemed to be so careless that Mr.
Everett feared that he might not be fully aware of the gravity of the
occasion. But when the hour came, the man was there. ‘As I saw him
in the evening, if I may borrow an illustration from his favorite
amusement,’ said Mr. Everett, ‘he was as unconcerned and as free of
spirit as some here have often seen him while floating in his fishing-
boat along a hazy shore, gently rocking on the tranquil tide, dropping
his line here and there with the varying fortune of the sport. The next
morning he was like some mighty admiral, dark and terrible, casting
the long shadow of his frowning tiers far over the sea, that seemed to
sink beneath him; his broad pennant streaming at the main, the
Stars and Stripes at the fore, the mizzen, and the peak, and bearing
down like a tempest upon his antagonist, with all his canvas strained
to the wind, and all his thunders roaring from his broadsides.’ This
passage well suggests that indescribable impression of great oratory
which Rufus Choate, in his eulogy of Webster at Dartmouth College,
conveys by a felicitous citation of what Quintilian says of Hortensius,
that there was some spell in the spoken word which the reader
misses.”
As we have remarked, the Republicans were awaiting the coming
of a near and greater power to themselves, and at the same time
jealously watching the movements of the friends of the South in
Congress and in the President’s Cabinet. It needed all their
watchfulness to prevent advantages which the secessionists thought
they had a right to take. Thus Jefferson Davis, on January 9th, 1860,
introduced to the senate a bill “to authorize the sale of public arms to
the several States and Territories,” and as secession became more
probable he sought to press its passage, but failed. Floyd, the
Secretary of War, was far more successful, and his conduct was made
the subject of the following historic and most remarkable report:-
 Transfer of U. S. Arms South In 1859–60.

Report (Abstract of) made by Mr. B. Stanton, from the Committee

on Military Affairs, in House of Representatives, Feb. 18th, 1861.
The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the
resolution of the House of Representatives of 31st of December last,
instructing said committee to inquire and report to the House, how,
to whom, and at what price, the public arms distributed since the
first day of January, A. D. 1860, have been disposed of; and also into
the condition of the forts, arsenals, dock-yards, etc., etc., submit the
following report:
That it appears from the papers herewith submitted, that Mr.
Floyd, the late Secretary of War, by the authority or under color of
the law of March 3d, 1825, authorizing the Secretary of War to sell
any arms, ammunition, or other military stores which should be
found unsuitable for the public service, sold to sundry persons and
States 31,610 flint-lock muskets, altered to percussion, at $2.50 each,
between the 1st day of January, A. D. 1860, and the 1st day of January,
A. D., 1861. It will be seen from the testimony of Colonel Craig and
Captain Maynadier, that they differ as to whether the arms so sold
had been found, “upon proper inspection, to be unsuitable for the
public service.”
Whilst the Committee do not deem it important to decide this
question, they say, that in their judgment it would require a very
liberal construction of the law to bring these sales within its
provisions.
It also appears that on the 21st day of November last, Mr. Belknap
made application to the Secretary of War for the purchase of from
one to two hundred and fifty thousand United States muskets, flint-
locks and altered to percussion, at $2.15 each; but the Secretary
alleges that the acceptance was made under a misapprehension of
the price bid, he supposing it was $2.50 each, instead of $2.15.
 Mr. Belknap denies all knowledge of any mistake or
misapprehension, and insists upon the performance of his contract.
The present Secretary refuses to recognize the contract, and the
muskets have not been delivered to Mr. Belknap.
Mr. Belknap testifies that the muskets were intended for the
Sardinian government.
It will appear by the papers herewith submitted, that on the 29th
of December, 1859, the Secretary of War ordered the transfer of
65,000 percussion muskets, 40,000 muskets altered to percussion,
and 10,000 percussion rifles, from the Springfield Armory and the
Watertown and Watervliet Arsenals, to the Arsenals at Fayetteville,
N. C., Charleston, S. C., Augusta, Ga., Mount Vernon, Ala., and Baton
Rouge, La., and that these arms were distributed during the spring of
1860 as follows:

Percussion Altered Rifles.

muskets. muskets.
To Charleston Arsenal, 9,280 5,720 2,000
To North Carolina 15,480 9,520 2,000
Arsenal,
To Augusta Arsenal, 12,380 7,620 2,000
To Mount Vernon 9,280 5,720 2,000
Arsenal,
To Baton Rouge 18,580 11,420 2,000
Arsenal,

65,000 40,000 10,000

All of these arms, except those sent to the North Carolina Arsenal,
[12]
have been seized by the authorities of the several States of South
Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia, and are no longer in
possession of the United States.
It will appear by the testimony herewith presented, that on the
20th of October last the Secretary of War ordered forty columbiads
and four thirty-two pounders to be sent from the Arsenal at Pittsburg
to the fort on Ship Island, on the coast of Mississippi, then in an
unfinished condition, and seventy columbiads and seven thirty-two
pounders to be sent from the same Arsenal to the fort at Galveston,
in Texas, the building of which had scarcely been commenced.
This order was given to the Secretary of War, without any report
from the Engineer department showing that said works were ready
for their armament, or that the guns were needed at either of said
points.
It will be seen by the testimony of Captain Wright, of the Engineer
department, that the fort at Galveston cannot be ready for its entire
armament in less than about five years, nor for any part of it in less
than two; and that the fort at Ship Island will require an
appropriation of $85,000 and one year’s time before it can be ready
for any part of its armament. This last named fort has been taken
possession of by the State authorities of Mississippi.
The order of the late Secretary of War (Floyd) was countermanded
by the present Secretary (Holt) before it had been fully executed by
the shipment of said guns from Pittsburg.[13]
It will be seen by a communication from the Ordnance office of the
21st of January last, that by the last returns there were remaining in
the United States arsenals and armories the following small arms,
viz:

Percussion muskets and muskets altered to percussion of calibre 69 499,554

Percussion rifles, calibre 54 42,011

Total 541,565

Of these 60,878 were deposited in the arsenals of South Carolina,

Alabama, and Louisiana, and are in the possession of the authorities
of those States, reducing the number in possession of the United
States to 480,687.
Since the date of said communication, the following additional
forts and military posts have been taken possession of by parties
acting under the authority of the States in which they are respectively
situated, viz:

Fort Moultrie, South Carolina.

Fort Morgan, Alabama.
Baton Rouge Barracks, Louisiana.
Fort Jackson, Louisiana.
Fort St. Philip, „
Fort Pike, Louisiana.
Oglethorpe Barracks, Georgia.

And the department has been unofficially advised that the arsenal
at Chattahoochee, Forts McRea and Barrancas, and Barracks, have
been seized by the authorities of Florida.
To what further extent the small arms in possession of the United
States may have been reduced by these figures, your committee have
not been advised.
The whole number of the seaboard forts in the United States is
fifty-seven; their appropriate garrison in war would require 26,420
men; their actual garrison at this time is 1,334 men, 1,308 of whom
are in the forts at Governor’s Island, New York; Fort McHenry,
Maryland; Fort Monroe, Virginia, and at Alcatraz Island, California,
in the harbor of San Francisco.
From the facts elicited, it is certain that the regular military force
of the United States, is wholly inadequate to the protection of the
forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other property of the United States in
the present disturbed condition of the country. The regular army
numbers only 18,000 men when recruited to its maximum strength,
and the whole of this force is required for the protection of the
border settlements against Indian depredations. Unless it is the
intention of Congress that the forts, arsenals, dock-yards and other
public property, shall be exposed to capture and spoliation, the
President must be armed with additional force for their protection.
In the opinion of the Committee the law of February 28th, 1795,
confers upon the President ample power to call out the militia,
execute the laws and protect the public property. But as the late
Attorney-General has given a different opinion, the Committee to
remove all doubt upon the subject, report the accompanying bill, etc.

OTHER ITEMS.
 Statement of Arms distributed by Sale since the first of January,
1860, to whom sold and the place whence sold.

To whom sold. No. 1860. Arsenals.

Date of Sale. Where sold.
J. W. Zacharie & Co. 4,000 Feb. 3 St. Louis.
James T. Ames 1,000 Mar. 14 New York.
Captain G. Barry 80 June 11 St. Louis.
W. C. N. Swift 400 Aug. 31 Springfield.
do. 80 Nov. 13 do.
State of Alabama 1,000 Sep. 27 Baton Rouge.
do. 2,500 Nov. 14 do.
State of Virginia 5,000 Nov. 6 Washington.
Phillips county, Ark. 50 Nov. 16 St. Louis.
G. B. Lamar 10,000 Nov. 24 Watervliet.

The arms were all flint-lock muskets altered to percussion, and

were all sold at $2.50 each, except those purchased by Captain G.
Barry and by the Phillips county volunteers, for which $2 each were
paid.
The Mobile Advertiser says: “During the past year 135,430
muskets have been quietly transferred from the Northern Arsenal at
Springfield alone, to those in the Southern States. We are much
obliged to Secretary Floyd for the foresight he has thus displayed in
disarming the North and equipping the South for this emergency.
There is no telling the quantity of arms and munitions which were
sent South from other Northern arsenals. There is no doubt but that
every man in the South who can carry a gun can now be supplied
from private or public sources. The Springfield contribution alone
would arm all the militiamen of Alabama and Mississippi.”
General Scott, in his letter of December 2d, 1862, on the early
history of the Rebellion, states that “Rhode Island, Delaware and
Texas had not drawn, at the end of 1860, their annual quotas of arms
for that year, and Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Kentucky only in
part; Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Kansas were, by order of the Secretary of War,
supplied with their quotas for 1861 in advance, and Pennsylvania and
Maryland in part.”
 This advance of arms to eight Southern States is in addition to the
transfer, about the same time, of 115,000 muskets to Southern
arsenals, as per Mr. Stanton’s report.
Governor Letcher of Virginia, in his Message of December, 1861,
says, that for some time prior to secession, he had been engaged in
purchasing arms, ammunition, etc.; among which were 13 Parrott
rifled cannon, and 5,000 muskets. He desired to buy from the United
States Government 10,000 more, when buying the 5,000, but he says
“the authorities declined to sell them to us, although five times the
number were then in the arsenal at Washington.”
Had Jefferson Davis’ bill relative to the purchase of arms become a
law, the result might have been different.
This and similar action on the part of the South, especially the
attempted seizure and occupation of forts, convinced many of the
Republicans that no compromise could endure, however earnest its
advocates from the Border States, and this earnestness was
unquestioned. Besides their attachment to the Union, they knew that
in the threatened war they would be the greatest sufferers, with their
people divided neighbor against neighbor, their lands laid waste, and
their houses destroyed. They had every motive for earnestness in the
effort to conciliate the disagreeing sections.
The oddest partisan feature in the entire preliminary and political
struggle was the attempt, in the parlance of the day, of “New York to
secede from New York”—an oddity verified by Mayor Wood’s
recommendation in favor of the secession of New York city, made
January 6th, 1861. The document deserves a place in this history, as
it shows the views of a portion of the citizens then, and an exposition
of their interests as presented by a citizen before and since named by
repeated elections to Congress.
 Mayor Wood’s Secession Message.

To the Honorable the Common Council:

Gentlemen:—We are entering upon the public duties of the year under
circumstances as unprecedented as they are gloomy and painful to contemplate.
The great trading and producing interests of not only the city of New York, but of
the entire country, are prostrated by a monetary crisis; and although similar
calamities have before befallen us, it is the first time that they have emanated from
causes having no other origin than that which may be traced to political
disturbances. Truly, may it now be said, “We are in the midst of a revolution
bloodless AS YET.” Whether the dreadful alternative implied as probable in the
conclusion of this prophetic quotation may be averted, “no human ken can divine.”
It is quite certain that the severity of the storm is unexampled in our history, and if
the disintegration of the Federal Government, with the consequent destruction of
all the material interests of the people shall not follow, it will be owing more to the
interposition of Divine Providence, than to the inherent preventive power of our
institutions, or the intervention of any other human agency.
It would seem that a dissolution of the Federal Union is inevitable. Having been
formed originally on a basis of general and mutual protection, but separate local
independence—each State reserving the entire and absolute control of its own
domestic affairs, it is evidently impossible to keep them together longer than they
deem themselves fairly treated by each other, or longer than the interests, honor
and fraternity of the people of the several States are satisfied. Being a Government
created by opinion, its continuance is dependent upon the continuance of the
sentiment which formed it. It cannot be preserved by coercion or held together by
force. A resort to this last dreadful alternative would of itself destroy not only the
Government, but the lives and property of the people.
If these forebodings shall be realized, and a separation of the States shall occur,
momentous considerations will be presented to the corporate authorities of this
city. We must provide for the new relations which will necessarily grow out of the
new condition of public affairs.
It will not only be necessary for us to settle the relations which we shall hold to
other cities and States, but to establish, if we can, new ones with a portion of our
own State. Being the child of the Union, having drawn our sustenance from its
bosom, and arisen to our present power and strength through the vigor of our
mother—when deprived of her maternal advantages, we must rely upon our own
resources and assume a position predicated upon the new phase which public
affairs will present, and upon the inherent strength which our geographical,
commercial, political, and financial pre-eminence imparts to us.
With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly relations and a
common sympathy. We have not participated in the warfare upon their
constitutional rights or their domestic institutions. While other portions of our
State have unfortunately been imbued with the fanatical spirit which actuates a
portion of the people of New England, the city of New York has unfalteringly
preserved the integrity of its principles in adherence to the compromises of the
Constitution and the equal rights of the people of all the States. We have respected
the local interests of every section, at no time oppressing, but all the while aiding in
the development of the resources of the whole country. Our ships have penetrated
to every clime, and so have New York capital, energy and enterprise found their
way to every State, and, indeed, to almost every county and town of the American
Union. If we have derived sustenance from the Union, so have we in return
disseminated blessings for the common benefit of all. Therefore, New York has a
right to expect, and should endeavor to preserve a continuance of uninterrupted
intercourse with every section.
It is, however, folly to disguise the fact that, judging from the past, New York
may have more cause of apprehension from the aggressive legislation of our own
State than from external dangers. We have already largely suffered from this cause.
For the past five years, our interests and corporate rights have been repeatedly
trampled upon. Being an integral portion of the State, it has been assumed, and in
effect tacitly admitted on our part by nonresistance, that all political and
governmental power over us rested in the State Legislature. Even the common
right of taxing ourselves for our own government, has been yielded, and we are not
permitted to do so without this authority.***
Thus it will be seen that the political connection between the people of the city
and the State has been used by the latter to our injury. The Legislature, in which
the present partizan majority has the power, has become the instrument by which
we are plundered to enrich their speculators, lobby agents, and Abolition
politicians. Laws are passed through their malign influence by which, under forms
of legal enactment, our burdens have been increased, our substance eaten out, and
our municipal liberties destroyed. Self-government, though guaranteed by the
State Constitution, and left to every other county and city, has been taken from us
by this foreign power, whose dependents have been sent among us to destroy our
liberties by subverting our political system.
How we shall rid ourselves of this odious and oppressive connection, it is not for
me to determine. It is certain that a dissolution cannot be peacefully accomplished,
except by the consent of the Legislature itself. Whether this can be obtained or not,
is, in my judgment, doubtful. Deriving so much advantage from its power over the
city, it is not probable that a partizan majority will consent to a separation—and
the resort to force by violence and revolution must not be thought of for an instant.
We have been distinguished as an orderly and law-abiding people. Let us do
nothing to forfeit this character, or to add to the present distracted condition of
public affairs.
Much, no doubt, can be said in favor of the justice and policy of a separation. It
may be said that secession or revolution in any of the United States would be
subversive of all Federal authority, and, so far as the Central Government is
concerned, the resolving of the community into its original elements—that, if part
of the States form new combinations and Governments, other States may do the
same. California and her sisters of the Pacific will no doubt set up an independent
Republic and husband their own rich mineral resources. The Western States,
equally rich in cereals and other agricultural products, will probably do the same.
Then it may be said, why should not New York city, instead of supporting by her
contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expenses of the United States, become
also equally independent? As a free city, with but nominal duty on imports, her
local Government could be supported without taxation upon her people. Thus we
could live free from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free. In this she would
have the whole and united support of the Southern States, as well as all the other
States to whose interests and rights under the Constitution she has always been
true.
It is well for individuals or communities to look every danger square in the face,
and to meet it calmly and bravely. As dreadful as the severing of the bonds that
have hitherto united the States has been in contemplation, it is now apparently a
stern and inevitable fact. We have now to meet it with all the consequences,
whatever they may be. If the Confederacy is broken up the Government is
dissolved, and it behooves every distinct community, as well as every individual, to
take care of themselves.
When Disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York
disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master—to a people and a
party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her commerce, taken
away the power of self-government, and destroyed the Confederacy of which she
was the proud Empire City? Amid the gloom which the present and prospective
condition of things must cast over the country, New York, as a Free City, may shed
the only light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed Confederacy.
But I am not prepared to recommend the violence implied in these views. In
stating this argument in favor of freedom, “peaceably if we can, forcibly if we
must,” let me not be misunderstood. The redress can be found only in appeals to
the magnanimity of the people of the whole State. The events of the past two
months have no doubt effected a change in the popular sentiment of the State and
National politics. This change may bring us the desired relief, and we may be able
to obtain a repeal of the law to which I have referred, and a consequent restoration
of our corporate rights.

Fernando Wood, Mayor

January 6th, 1861.

 Congress on the Eve of the Rebellion.

It should be borne in mind that all of the propositions, whether for

compromise, authority to suppress insurrection, or new laws to
collect duties, had to be considered by the Second Session of the 36th
Congress, which was then, with the exception of the Republicans, a
few Americans, and the anti-Lecompton men, supporting the
administration of Buchanan. No Congress ever had so many and
such grave propositions presented to it, and none ever showed more
exciting political divisions. It was composed of the following persons,
some of whom survive, and most of whom are historic characters:

SENATE.

John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, Vice-President;

Maine—H. Hamlin,[14] W. P. Fessenden.
New Hampshire—John P. Hale, Daniel Clark.
Vermont—Solomon Foot, J. Collamer.
Massachusetts—Henry Wilson, Charles Sumner.
Rhode Island—James F. Simmons, H. B. Anthony.
Connecticut—L. S. Foster, Jas. Dixon.
New York—William H. Seward, Preston King.
New Jersey—J. C. Ten Eyck, J. R. Thomson.
Pennsylvania—S. Cameron, Wm. Bigler.
Delaware—J. A. Bayard, W. Saulsbury.
Maryland—J. A. Pearce, A. Kennedy.
Virginia—R. M. T. Hunter, James M. Mason.
South Carolina—Jas. Chesnut,[15] James H. Hammond.[15]
North Carolina—Thomas Bragg, T. L. Clingman.
 Alabama—B. Fitzpatrick, C. C. Clay, Jr.
Mississippi—A. G. Brown, Jeff. Davis.
Louisiana—J. P. Benjamin, John Slidell.
Tennessee—A. O. P. Nicholson, A. Johnson.
Arkansas—R. W. Johnson, W. K. Sebastian.
Kentucky—L. W. Powell. J. J. Crittenden.
Missouri—Jas. S. Green, Trusten Polk.
Ohio—B. F. Wade, Geo. E. Pugh.
Indiana—J. D. Bright, G. N. Fitch.
Illinois—S. A. Douglas, L. Trumbull.
Michigan—Z. Chandler, K. S. Bingham.
Florida—D. L. Yulee, S. R. Mallory.
Georgia—Alfred Iverson, Robt. Toombs.
Texas—John Hemphill, L. T. Wigfall.
Wisconsin—Charles Durkee, J. R. Doolittle.
Iowa—J. M. Grimes, Jas. Harlan.
California—M. S. Latham. William M. Gwin.
Minnesota—H. M. Rice, M. S. Wilkinson.
Oregon—Joseph Lane, Edward D. Baker.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

William Pennington, of New Jersey, Speaker.

Maine—D. E. Somes, John J. Perry, E. B. French, F. H. Morse,
Israel Washburn, Jr.,[16] S. C. Foster.
New Hampshire—Gilman Marston, M. W. Tappan, T. M. Edwards.
Vermont—E. P. Walton, J. S. Morrill, H. E. Royce.
Massachusetts—Thomas D. Eliot, James Buffinton, Charles
Francis Adams, Alexander H. Rice, Anson Burlingame, John B. Alley,
Daniel W. Gooch, Charles R. Train, Eli Thayer, Charles Delano,
Henry L. Dawes.
Rhode Island—C. Robinson, W. D. Brayton.
 Connecticut—Dwight Loomis, John Woodruff, Alfred A. Burnham,
Orris S. Ferry.
Delaware—W. G. Whiteley.
New York—Luther C. Carter, James Humphreys, Daniel E. Sickles,
W. B. Maclay, Thomas J. Barr, John Cochrane, Gorge Briggs, Horace
F. Clark, John B. Haskin, Chas. H. Van Wyck, William S. Kenyon,
Charles L. Beale, Abm. B. Olin, John H. Reynolds, Jas. B. McKean, G.
W. Palmer, Francis E. Spinner, Clark B. Cochrane, James H.
Graham, Richard Franchot, Roscoe Conkling, R. H. Duell, M. Ludley
Lee, Charles B. Hoard, Chas. B. Sedgwick, M. Butterfield, Emory B.
Pottle, Alfred Wells, William Irvine, Alfred Ely, Augustus Frank,
Edwin R. Reynolds, Elbridge G. Spaulding, Reuben E. Fenton.
New Jersey—John T. Nixon, John L. N. Stratton, Garnett B.
Adrain, Jetur R. Riggs, Wm. Pennington (Speaker).
Pennsylvania—Thomas B. Florence, E. Joy Morris, John P.
Verree, William Millward, John Wood, John Hickman, Henry C.
Longnecker, Jacob K. McKenty, Thaddeus Stevens, John W.
Kellinger, James H. Campbell, George W. Scranton, William H.
Dimmick, Galusha A. Grow, James T. Hale, Benjamin F. Junkin,
Edward McPherson, Samuel S. Blair, John Covode, William
Montgomery, James K. Moorhead, Robert McKnight, William
Stewart, Chapin Hall, Elijah Babbitt.
Maryland—Jas. A. Stewart, J. M. Harris, H. W. Davis, J. M.
Kunkel, G. W. Hughes.
Virginia—John S. Millson, Muscoe R. H. Garnett, Daniel C. De
Jarnette, Roger A. Pryor, Thomas S. Bocock, William Smith, Alex. R.
Boteler, John T. Harris, Albert G. Jenkins, Shelton F. Leake, Henry
A. Edmundson, Elbert S. Martin, Sherrard Clemens.
South Carolina—John McQueen, Wm. Porcher Miles, Lawrence
M. Keitt, Milledge L. Bonham, John D. Ashmore, Wm. W. Boyce.
North Carolina—W. N. H. Smith, Thos. Ruffin, W. Winslow, L.
O’B. Branch, John A. Gilmer, Jas. M. Leach, Burton Craige, Z. B.
Vance.
Georgia—Peter E. Love, M. J. Crawford, Thos. Hardeman, Jr., L.
J. Gartrell, J. W. H. Underwood, James Jackson, Joshua Hill, John J.
Jones.
 Alabama—Jas. L. Pugh, David Clopton, Sydenh. Moore, Geo. S.
Houston, W. R. W. Cobb, J. A. Stallworth, J. L. M. Curry.
Mississippi—L. Q. C. Lamar, Reuben Davis, William Barksdale, O.
R. Singleton, John J. McRae.
Louisiana—John E. Bouligny, Miles Taylor, T. G. Davidson, John
M. Landrum.
Ohio—G. H. Pendleton, John A. Gurley, C. L. Vallandigham,
William Allen, James M. Ashley, Wm. Howard, Thomas Corwin,
Benj. Stanton, John Carey, C. A. Trimble, Chas. D. Martin, Saml. S.
Cox, John Sherman, H. G. Blake, William Helmick, C. B. Tompkins,
T. C. Theaker, S. Edgerton, Edward Wade, John Hutchins, John A.
Bingham.
Kentucky—Henry C. Burnett, Green Adams, S. O. Peyton, F. M.
Bristow, W. C. Anderson, Robert Mallory, Wm. E. Simms, L. T.
Moore, John Y. Brown, J. W. Stevenson.
Tennessee—T. A. R. Nelson, Horace Maynard, R. B. Brabson,
William B. Stokes, Robert Hatton, James H. Thomas, John V.
Wright, James M. Quarles, Emerson Etheridge, Wm. T. Avery.
Indiana—Wm. E. Niblack, Wm. H. English, Wm. M’Kee Dunn,
Wm. S. Holman, David Kilgore, Albert G. Porter, John G. Davis,
James Wilson, Schuyler Colfax, Chas. Case, John U. Pettit.
Illinois—E. B. Washburne, J. F. Farnsworth, Owen Lovejoy, Wm.
Kellogg, I. N. Morris, John A. McClernand, James C. Robinson, P. B.
Fouke, John A. Logan.
Arkansas—Thomas C. Hindman, Albert Rust.
Missouri—J. R. Barrett, T. L. Anderson, John B. Clark, James
Craig, L. H. Woodson, John S. Phelps, John W. Noell.
Michigan—William A. Howard, Henry Waldron, F. W. Kellogg, De
W. C. Leach.
Florida—George S. Hawkins.
Texas—John H. Regan, A. J. Hamilton.
Iowa—S. R. Curtis, Wm. Vandever.
California—Charles L. Scott, John C. Burch.
Wisconsin—John F. Porter, C. C. Washburne, C. H. Larrabee.
Minnesota—Cyrus Aldrich, Wm. Windom.
 Oregon—Lansing Stout.
Kansas—Martin F. Conway, (sworn Jan. 30th, 1861).

MR. LINCOLN’S VIEWS.

While the various propositions above given were under

consideration, Mr. Lincoln was of course an interested observer from
his home in Illinois, where he awaited the legal time for taking his
seat as President. His views on the efforts at compromise were
sought by the editor of the New York Tribune, and expressed as
follows:
“‘I will suffer death before I will consent or advise my friends to
consent to any concession or compromise which looks like buying
the privilege of taking possession of the Government to which we
have a constitutional right; because, whatever I might think of the
merits of the various propositions before Congress, I should regard
any concession in the face of menace as the destruction of the
government itself, and a consent on all hands that our system shall
be brought down to a level with the existing disorganized state of
affairs in Mexico. But this thing will hereafter be, as it is now, in the
hands of the people; and if they desire to call a convention to remove
any grievances complained of, or to give new guarantees for the
permanence of vested rights, it is not mine to oppose.’”

JUDGE BLACK’S VIEWS.

Jeremiah S. Black, of Pennsylvania, was then Buchanan’s

Attorney-General, and as his position has since been made the
subject of lengthy controversy, it is pertinent to give the following
copious extract from his “Opinion upon the Powers of the President,”
in response to an official inquiry from the Executive:—
The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive.
You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property, and aid the courts
in the performance of their duty. If the means given you to collect the revenue and
execute the other laws be insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and
make them more effectual to that end.
 If one of the States should declare her independence, your action cannot depend
upon the rightfulness of the cause upon which such declaration is based. Whether
the retirement of a State from the Union be the exercise of a right reserved in the
Constitution or a revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either
case the authority to recognize her independence or to absolve her from her
Federal obligations. Congress or the other States in convention assembled must
take such measures as may be necessary and proper. In such an event I see no
course for you but to go straight onward in the path you have hitherto trodden,
that is, execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in your hands,
and act generally upon the assumption that the present constitutional relations
between the States and the Federal Government continue to exist until a new order
of things shall be established, either by law or force.
Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more
States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by
means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself
to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are
there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated
in article I. section 8, is that “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal,
and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.” This certainly means
nothing more than the power to commence, and carry on hostilities against the
foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress
the power “to provide for calling forth the militia,” and to use them within the
limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately
follow, that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes: 1. To execute
the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their
regular duties. 2. To suppress insurrections against the States; but this is confined
by article IV. section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance
against her own people. 3. To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come
from abroad to assail her in her own territory. All these provisions are made to
protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon
another; to preserve their peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our
forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated “to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the
common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity.” There was undoubtedly a strong and universal
conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military
force would not only be useless, but pernicious as a means of holding the States
together.
If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities
carried on by the central government against a State, then it seems to follow that
an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union.
Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly.
And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting
strife and enmity, and armed hostility, between different sections of the country,
instead of the “domestic tranquillity” which the Constitution was meant to insure,
will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of
the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like
that?
The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional
vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers,
cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to
punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State governments, or to
prevent a threatened violation of the Constitution, or to enforce an
acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States
are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest and hold
them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon
which they are now connected.
If this view of the subject be as correct as I think it is, then the Union must
totally perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people
against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General
Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions. I am, very
respectfully, yours, etc.,
 J. S. Black.

To the President of the United States.

The above expressions from Lincoln and Black well state the
position of the Republican and the administration Democrats on the
eve of the rebellion, and they are given for that purpose. The views of
the original secessionists are given in South Carolina’s declaration.
Those of the conservatives of the South who hesitated and leaned
toward the Union, were best expressed before the Convention of
Georgia in the

SPEECH OF ALEX. H. STEPHENS.

This step (of secession) once taken can never be recalled; and all
the baleful and withering consequences that must follow, will rest on
the convention for all coming time. When we and our posterity shall
see our lovely South desolated by the demon of war, which this act of
yours will inevitably invite and call forth; when our green fields of
waving harvest shall be trodden down by the murderous soldiery and
fiery car of war sweeping over our land; our temples of justice laid in
ashes; all the horrors and desolations of war upon us; who but this
Convention will be held responsible for it? and who but him who
shall have given his vote for this unwise and ill-timed measure, as I
honestly think and believe, shall be held to strict account for this
suicidal act by the present generation, and probably cursed and
execrated by posterity for all coming time, for the wide and
desolating ruin that will inevitably follow this act you now propose to
perpetrate? Pause, I entreat you, and consider for a moment what
reasons you can give that will even satisfy yourselves in calmer
moments—what reason you can give to your fellow sufferers in the
calamity that it will bring upon us. What reasons can you give to the
nations of the earth to justify it? They will be the calm and deliberate
judges in the case; and what cause or one overt act can you name or
point, on which to rest the plea of justification? What right has the
North assailed? What interest of the South has been invaded? What
justice has been denied? and what claim founded in justice and right
has been withheld? Can either of you to-day name one governmental
act of wrong, deliberately and purposely done by the government of
Washington, of which the South has a right to complain? I challenge
the answer. While on the other hand, let me show the facts (and
believe me, gentlemen, I am not here the advocate of the North; but I
am here the friend, the firm friend, and lover of the South and her
institutions, and for this reason I speak thus plainly and faithfully for
yours, mine, and every other man’s interest, the words of truth and
soberness), of which I wish you to judge, and I will only state facts
which are clear and undeniable, and which now stand as records
authentic in the history of our country. When we of the South
demanded the slave-trade, or the importation of Africans for the
cultivation of our lands, did they not yield the right for twenty years?
When we asked a three-fifths representation in Congress for our
slaves, was it not granted? When we asked and demanded the return
of any fugitive from justice, or the recovery of those persons owing
labor or allegiance, was it not incorporated in the Constitution, and
again ratified and strengthened by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850?
But do you reply that in many instances they have violated this
compact, and have not been faithful to their engagements? As
individual and local communities, they may have done so; but not by
the sanction of Government; for that has always been true to
Southern interests. Again, gentlemen, look at another act: when we
have asked that more territory should be added, that we might
spread the institution of slavery, have they not yielded to our
demands in giving us Louisiana, Florida and Texas, out of which four
States have been carved, and ample territory for four more to be
added in due time, if you by this unwise and impolitic act do not
destroy this hope, and perhaps, by it lose all, and have your last slave
wrenched from you by stern military rule, as South America and
Mexico were; or by the vindictive decree of a universal
emancipation, which may reasonably be expected to follow?
But, again, gentlemen, what have we to gain by this proposed
change of our relation to the General Government? We have always
had the control of it, and can yet, if we remain in it, and are as united
as we have been. We have had a majority of the Presidents chosen
from the South; as well as the control and management of most of
those chosen from the North. We have had sixty years of Southern
Presidents to their twenty-four, thus controlling the Executive
department. So of the Judges of the Supreme Court, we have had
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookname.com