Topic Proportions

Topic Percent
secession
69.03%
[unclear]
4.52%
legislature
3.87%
government
3.23%
military campaigns
3.23%
anti-northern diatribes
2.58%
European news
1.94%
North
1.94%
real estate sales and auctions
1.29%
military orders, e.g. conscriptions
1.29%
weather
1.29%
elections
1.29%
war reports
0.65%
fugitive slave ads
0.65%
war bonds
0.65%
military--often from Western Theater
0.65%
humor
0.65%
war prisoners
0.65%
military recruitment
0.65%
From the Wed., Jan. 09, 1861 issue

Any sectional organization is prima facie hostile. It is hostility to another section in some way or other. And in communities where such organizations occur it is absolutely necessary for peace and order, and to prevent separation, that, even in the ordinary elections, the equality of sections shall be preserved by electing officers alternately from the different divisions. If this be so even in municipal and State matters, how much stronger are the feelings of sectionalism in a Confederacy of States, and how much more imperative it is that measures of equality shall negative their dangerous tendencies. Washington, in his prediction that a sectional organization of parties would dissolve the Union, may or may not have had the slavery question in view.—He certainly had seen enough of sectionalism and clannishness in the army to make him dread their introduction into the politics of the country.

If any sort of sectionalism is dangerous, how much more dangerous than any other is that which selects as the basis of its organization, issues upon the most sensitive question that can be touched. Mr. Buchanan, in '33, said that we might dispute over the Tariff, U. S. Bank, Internal Improvements by the General Government, nay, any measure of public policy, without danger to the Confederacy; but the moment the question of slavery was opened, the peace of the country, and the Union itself, was imperilled. And this is the question opened, in its most exciting phases, by the sectional Black Republican party of the North. But even let the shock their acts and policy have given the country pass by—if possible, let there be a settlement of our present troubles, and the Union be restored to peace and concord—yet if that party, or one in its place, continues the sectional organization, and the holding of power and the administration of the Government in the hands of a purely Northern party, Washington will prove no less a prophet, and the Union will assuredly be dissolved. If, in the restoration of the Confederacy, if that be possible, (and we hope it is,) sectionalism be not broken up and overwhelmed, it will be a mere patching up of things—a mere covering up of the embers of discord—a few years will involve us in all the troubles we now endure, and bring the fabric of the Union again to the brink of ruin. If it survives now, can it survive another such shock?