“Dese ish de brinciples I holts,
And dose in vitch I run:
Dey ish fixed firm and immutaple
Ash te course of de ‘ternal sun:

Boot if you ton’t abbrove of dem—
Blease nodice vot I say—
I shall only be too happy
To alder dem right afay.”[149]

From an editorial leader of May 25, we hear that the Weekly is in receipt of abusive and threatening letters from various persons in the Southern States, the cause assigned for which rude conduct is “the statement in our editorial of March 4, to the effect that civil war between the Free States on one side and the Slave States on the other will inevitably, sooner or later, become a war of emancipation,” etc., etc. The reader may notice here that the expression, “Free States on one side and the Slave States on the other,” just as clearly and forcibly puts forth the doctrine of state sovereignty and the right of secession, as does the title of Alexander Stephens’s late work, which, in the smallest of nut-shells, gives the same doctrine in the few words, The War between the States. But what is of as great importance is that the contingent danger of emancipation was not presented by the journal at so early a date as March 4. There is no such editorial of March 4, there is no editorial of any kind of March 4, and, moreover, there was no number of Harper’s Weekly published on that date. The editorial referred to appeared May 4. And here we would frankly say that we are quite willing to accept this March 4 for May 4 as the result of mistake, oversight, or careless proof-reading.

With the abusive and threatening letters came advices that “In Tennessee

vigilance committees forbid its (Harper’s) being sold.” “In Louisiana, the governor prohibits its distribution through the post-office.” And now, the Harpers, like Macbeth, have heard enough, and, seized with the frenzy of patriotism, thunder after this fashion:

“As for Harper’s Weekly, it will continue, as heretofore, to support the government of the United States,[150] the stars and stripes,[151] and the indivisible union[152] of thirty-four states.

“We know no other course[153] consistent with the duty of citizens, Christians, and honest men. If any subscriber to this journal expects us to give our aid or countenance to rebellion[154] against the government, he will be disappointed. If any man buys this journal expecting to find us apologize for treason,[155] robbery, rebellion, piracy, or murder, he will be disappointed. That is not our line of business. The proprietors of Harper’s Weekly would rather stop this journal to-morrow than publish a line in it which would hereafter cause their children to blush for the patriotism or the manhood of their parents.”

This sharp change of sentiment, this sudden right-about face, may be best illustrated by the notes we have appended and by the utterances of the Journal before and after certain occurrences.

BEFORE.AFTER.
Editorial (leader) March 30, 1861, entitled “The Two Constitutions.”Editorial (leader) May 18, 1861.
“The Constitution of the Southern Confederacy has been published. It is a copy of the original Constitution of the United States, with some variations. The principal variations are”—nineteen of these are then described, and the article concludes: “We have thus enumerated the principal alterations in the Constitution effected by the Congress at Montgomery. Most of them would receive the hearty support of the people of the North. But comment is superfluous.”“Mr. Jefferson Davis, Ex-Senator from Mississippi, has transmitted to the select council of rebels at Montgomery a document which he calls ‘A Message.’ It is a most ingenious and plausible statement of their case. Mr. Jefferson Davis is renowned for having made the most specious argument on record in justification of Mississippi repudiation. He has not forgotten his cunning. His ‘Message’ would almost persuade us—if we would forget facts and law—that rebellion is right, and the maintenance of government and the enforcement of law a barefaced usurpation.”