Editorial from Austin Weekly State Gazette

Had any man been bold enough to have given utterance to statements favoring a reconstruction of the old Union a year ago, he would have stood a good chance of being hanged to the nearest tree—Now we find this subject, or the alternative of giving up our slaves, openly discussed. If, after all the blood that has been shed in battle, the homes that have been laid waste, and the vile outrages that have been perpetrated upon defenceless women and children, we in Texas, who have been comparatively free from the horrors of war, are ready to go back into fellowship with the authors of those outrages, or yield to them the point on which the first issue was made, what a humiliating spectacle shall we present to the civilized world! Does any one, for a moment, suppose that our brave soldiers, who are still baring their breasts to the storm, ever think about re-construction or emancipation, else what are they still fighting for? The indication now appears to be re-construction with the probability of saving our negroes, or armed intervention, with emancipation. In the former (if even such a thing were possible, which God forbid) what guarantee would we have that we should receive any better protection for this species of property than we did before the war? And in the latter case, what certainty have we that an armed intervention would close the war? Would it not more than likely prolong it, by drawing in new levies on both sides, involving the whole of Europe in our quarrel, and probably the whole civilized world? Let us consider seriously the consequences. Let our planters speak out boldly and say if they are willing to give up their negroes for a French English protectorate, or if they prefer re-construction with the privilege of holding their slaves? In the Galveston News of the 1st inst., we find a long letter from Judge Mills, an old citizen of Texas, a slave owner and who claims to be a good Southern man. He says the war has cost more already than all the negroes in the Confederacy. Grant it—does that affix a pecuniary value to a great principle? Talk as we may please about State rights and central governments, the negro was the prime moving cause of the war, and the better security of our rights in this species of property the ultimate object for which the contest was inaugurated. Had Lincoln not been an abolitionist, his election would not have caused secession. If we now consent to give up our negroes, in our judgment we yield the question. While we give Judge Mills credit for the purest motives and the highest integrity of purpose, we think an alliance with either France or England, on such conditions as he intimates his willingness to accede to, would be about as disastrous in the end as a re-construction with the Yankees. Sooner than see re-construction, the two great powers of Europe would offer us almost any terms, but just so long as we keep fighting with about even chances, they are disposed to stand quietly by, knowing that the more we exhaust each other, the easier conquest we shall become for them in the end. We have no hopes from any peace movements in the North, but we think, if we can only hold our own a short time longer, terms of mediation will be offered which both parties may accept without any compromise. Events are maturing, but if we anticipate them by a show of weakness at home, the objects we are most desirous to accomplish may be frustrated.