whether
"successful coercion by the North is less revolutionary than successful
secession by the South? Shall we prevent revolution [he added] by being
foremost in over-throwing the principles of our Government, and all that
makes it valuable to our people and distinguishes it among the nations
of the earth?"

The venerable ex-Chancellor Walworth thus expressed himself:

"It would be as brutal, in my opinion, to send men to butcher
our own brothers of the Southern States as it would be to
massacre them in the Northern States. We are told, however, that
it is our duty to, and we must, enforce the laws. But why--and
what laws are to be enforced? There were laws that were to be
enforced in the time of the American Revolution.... Did Lord
Chatham go for enforcing those laws? No, he gloried in defense
of the liberties of America. He made that memorable declaration
in the British Parliament, 'If I were an American citizen,
instead of being, as I am, an Englishman, I never would submit
to such laws--never, never, never!'" [Prolonged applause.]

Other distinguished speakers expressed themselves in similar
terms--varying somewhat in their estimate of the propriety of the
secession of the Southern States, but all agreeing in emphatic and
unqualified reprobation of the idea of coercion. A series of
conciliatory resolutions was adopted, one of which declares that "civil
war will not restore the Union, but will defeat for ever its
reconstruction."

At a still later period--some time in the month of February--the "Free
Press," a leading paper in Detroit, had the following:

"If there shall not be a change in the present seeming purpose
to yield to no accommodation of the national difficulties, and
if troops shall be raised in the North to march against the
people of the South, _a fire in the rear will be opened upon
such troops_, which will either stop their march altogether or
wonderfully accelerate it."

The "Union," of Bangor, Maine, spoke no less decidedly to the same
effect:

"The difficulties between the North and the South must be
compromised, or the separation of the States _shall be
peaceable_. If the Republican party refuse to go the full length
of the Crittenden amendment--_which is the very least the South
can or ought to take_--then, here in Maine, not a Democrat will
be found who will raise his arm against his brethren