did not believe in that doctrine implicitly, but supported it because they thought it the best for the state and the South under the circumstances.
An excellent example of this class was an ambitious, earnest young lawyer, striving to convince himself honestly, by close study, as to the true status of political affairs. He wrote to an intimate friend[1] that he had read much and thought more on politics during the past year than he was willing to acknowledge, since he should have devoted his time chiefly to law. The result of his reading and reflection had been first to throw him into the ranks of those who thought the strict and liberal constructionists both went too far, and that the true constitutional ground lay somewhere between them. But, in spite of his conviction, he had gained another, a sad one: that it was to the interest of the South to cling to state rights. Therefore he was a state-rights man and believed that the state should prepare to act according to the implications of that doctrine. Any one of the respectable class who believed as this honest young citizen did, but in whom the latter conviction, that it was to the interest of the South to
- ↑ Hammond Papers: T. W. Brevard to J. H. Hammond, October 11 1899.
