In last week’s edition, the importance of articulating thoughts through writing was highlighted as a significant contributing factor to the development and preservation of American history. The specific documentation explored throughout the series has proved the importance of historical writings, when considering the context of our Declaration of Independence is based on other recorded thoughts, declarations, theories, and beliefs.
It was not these early writings that established the history of America in its entirety. As previously stated, it was a foundation meant for future generations of Americans to build upon. The solid foundation gave the future generations of Americans the basis to grow the greatest free nation in the world. Countless notable events aided in the continued growth of America, and as with the Revolutionary war, protection of values came at the cost of bloodshed by our own. Less than 100 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independ-ence, which guaranteed the preservation of God-given freedom to all men, it was tested.
In the Wednesday morning, December 19, 1860 edition of the Indiana Daily State Sentinel, vast content can be found. Advertise-ments for American Watches by W.P. Bingham & Co, Wholesale Grocers of Alford, Mills & Co., and other novelties of the time can be found within the content. Railroad timetables were listed for convenience along with bazaars and community events. 
However, there was much more notable content within the pages. An article titled “The Prospect of Disunion” caught my eye. The article was published in December of 1860, almost four months before the American Civil War onset. When I consider the complexity, severity and weight felt by American leaders and citizens as they anxiously awaited to reach an outcome that would keep America unified, it is sobering.  Imagine reading the following (partial) article on a Wednesday morning: “The Prospect of Disunion” The first and second day’s proceedings of the South Carolina Convention indicate an entire unanimity for secession, and that such is the voice of the people of that State. The first object, as one of the speakers expressed it, is to break the chain of this Union, and the next consideration will be to study the point of direction — the best means of accomplishing that end and the organization of an Independent government. There can bo no question but South Carolina will be promptly sustained by Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, in withdrawing from the Union. That such will be the action of these States is placed beyond controversy by the address of 30 Southern Senators and members of Congress, issued on the 14th inst., and which, we think, expresses the sentiments of their constituents. It reads this:“The argument is exhausted. All hope of relief in the union through the agency of committees, congressional legislation or constitutional amendments, is extinguished, and we trust the South will not be deceived by appearances of the pretense of new guarantees. In our judgment, the Republicans are resolute in the purpose to grant nothing that will or ought to satisfy the South. We are satisfied the honor, safety, and independence of the Southern people require the organization of a Southern Confederacy — a result to be obtained only by a separate State secession — that the primary object of each slaveholding State ought to be its speedy and absolute separation for a Union with hostile States. We notice this feeling, if not so strongly expressed, is shared by the most conservative men of the Southern States. Mr. Crittenden, in a speech yesterday, doubts the willingness of the North to yield what will be satisfactory to the South, a fair division of the Territories, which, if not granted, he says, will force Kentucky, a State loyal to the Union, to cast her lost with her Southern sisters.
Republicanism, in its mildest form, is committed to the doctrine of the non-extension of slavery. This principle is prominently avowed in the Chicago platform, and it is the leading idea of the party. Is it probable that a great party, in the flush of victory, will consent to tear away the a corner stone upon which the whole fabric rests? With few exceptions, the leading men of the party and the press urge a firm adherence to the principles avowed by the Chicago convention. Does this position afford any hope that where will be concession and conciliation that will satisfy the hostile interests?
 What prospect of accommodation while the spirit continues which animates the extremists of the North and the extremists of the South? In such an event is not disunion inevitable? We give one or two extracts from the express views of Southern men to illustrate the feeling which now prevails in that section. One of the most eminent and deservedly respected divines in the South, thus writes to one of the members of Congress from Mississippi:
would say, in regard to any possible proposals of compromise, any efforts which well-meaning men may make to patch up this broken compact again — broken on one side and repudiated on the other — do not, I beg of you, give them any countenance or support whatever. Insist unalterably on the termination of a partnership into which we could only enter to be betrayed a second time. We don’t want new guarantees; we don’t want any more paper protections. The present Constitution is good enough, properly observed; and a mountain more of paper will furnish not a whit more of security than the single bond under we claim security now.
The thing that is wanting is the good faith which is necessary to make any compact secure. The past summer must have convinced any man of observation that there is a deep sentiment rooted in the Northern mind which must ever make that people dangerous to us, so long as they can claim to be our fellow citizens.A reunion of the States today would be followed in a very few years, if not immediately with the same discord, the same jealousy and the same succession of angry controversies which have harassed us for the past quarter of a century, and a the end of, probably, for the Northern power will grow stronger with   years. 
The Augusta Constitutionalist, which zealously supported Douglas and Johnson, and 
accepted the doctrine of nonintervention or an ultimatum is now strenuous for disunion. IT thus defines the policy of the South.
Our purposes now would not be to delay the exodus already preparing, but without a glance of regret toward the “flesh pot” of the Egypt we leave behind; with wives and little ones, to enter into the unknown of immediate and separate sovereignty, even as the old Israel of God did into the untrodden wilderness — trusting in that God to be our pillar of cloud by day, and of fire by night, and to lead us when and how he will, into our hoped for Canaan of Southern Independence.”
Read the rest of article,  in next week’s edition of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”