Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

which the South violated the Constitution or any of the laws made in pursuance thereof; whilst, on the contrary, fourteen of the Northern States passed acts nullifying the fugitive slave law, passed by Congress in obedience to the Constitution, denounced and defied the decisions of the Supreme Court, and Judge Black, of Pennsylvania, says of the Abolitionists: "They applauded John Brown to the echo, for a series of the basest murders on record. They did not conceal their hostility to the Federal and State governments nor deny their enmity to all laws which protected white men. The Constitution stood in their way, and they cursed it bitterly. The Bible was quoted against them, and they reviled God the Almighty himself."

(2) Our next inquiry is: Which side was the aggressor in provoking the conflict?

Mr. Hallam, in his "Constitutional History of England," states a universally recognized principle when he says: "The aggressor in war-that is, he who begins it is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary."

We think we have already shown, by Northern authorities, that be the 66 cause of the war," and it is easy to show, by like authorities, that it was clearly the aggressor in bringing on the war.

On the 7th of April, 1861, President Davis said: "With the Lincoln administration rests the responsibility of precipitating a collision and the fearful evils of a cruel war."

In his reply to Mr. Lincoln's call for Virginia's quota of seventyfive thousand troops to coerce the South, on April 15, 1861, Governor Letcher said: "You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and you can get no troops from Virginia for any such purpose."

But we are not content to rest this question on the statements of these Southern authorities, as high as they are, but will let Northern writers say what they think about this important matter.

Mr. Lunt says in reference to Mr. Lincoln sending the fleet to reënforce Sumter in April, 1861: "It was intended to draw the fire of the Confederates, and was a silent aggression with the object of producing an active aggression from the other side."

Mr. Benjamin J. Williams, another Massachusetts writer, says: "The South was invaded and a war of subjugation, destined to be the most gigantic which the world has ever seen, was begun by the Federal government against the seceding States, in complete and amazing disregard of the foundation principle of its own existence, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

66

But let us hear what Mr. Lincoln himself has to say on this question, and with his testimony we shall regard the question as conclusively settled. In reply to a committee from Chicago sent to intercede with him to be relieved from sending more troops from that city to the Northern armies, Mr. Lincoln said in a tone of bitterness: Gentlemen, after Boston, Chicago has been the chief instrument in bringing this war on the country. The Northwest has opposed the South, as New England has opposed the South. It is you who are largely responsible for making blood flow as it has. You called for war until we had it; you called for emancipation, and I have given it to you. Whatever you have asked, you have had. Now you come here begging to be let off. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves." (See Tarbell's "Life of Lincoln," Volume II., p. 149.)

Not only then are we justified in saying that the North was the aggressor in bringing on the war, but the latest Northern writer we have read from on this subject states this fact in as unmistakable terms as it was stated by President Davis on April the 7th, 1861, above quoted. This writer says:

"The determination expressed by Lincoln in his inaugural 'to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the United States,' precipitated the outbreak." (James Kendall Hosmer, L.L. D., in the American Nation; A History, Vol. 20, page

And again on page 43 the same writer says:

"Lincoln's announced determination 'to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties and imposts' was practically the announcement of an offensive war."

(3) Which side had the legal right to do what was done?

On the column of the monument erected to our great civic leader are the words pro aris et focis, meaning that the real cause of the South was that we fought in defense of our altars and our firesides. And the man who would not

"Strike for his altars and his fires,

God and his native land,"

is a craven and a coward and unworthy even of the name of man. Our country was invaded by armed men intent on coercion and conquest. We met them on the threshold and beat them and drove them back as long as we had anything to eat or strength to fight with. We could do no more, we could do no less, and history, our children, and even many of our former enemies, now applaud our conduct.

There were, however, two, and but two, question really involved in the conflict. We can scarcely do more than state these and cite some of the many Northern authorities to sustain the position that the South was right on both of these. They were: (1) The right of a State to secede, and (2) the right of the Federal government to coerce a seceding State. As to the first of these questions, the late Judge Black, of Pennsylvania, said what is true: "Secession, like slavery, was first planted in New England. There it grew and flourished and spread its branches far over the land before it was ever dreamed of at the South." And he further says that John Quincy Adams, in 1839, and Abraham Lincoln, in 1847, made elaborate arguments in favor of the legal right of a State to secede.

Mr. William Rawle, also late of Pennsylvania, in his work on the Constitution, the text-book used at West Point before the war, says: "It depends on the State itself to retain or abolish the principle of

representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union."

Timothy Pickering, Josiah Quincy, and Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, all of Massachusetts, the late Horace Greeley, Goldwin Smith, General Don Piet, of the Federal Army, and the Hartford Convention, all asserted and affirmed the same doctrine. And we know, that had not this right been understood to exist at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it would never have been adopted.

As to the second of these questions-i. e., the right of the Federal government to coerce a seceding State. This question was discussed to some extent in the convention which framed the Constitution. Mr. Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") said: "The more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficiency of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction." (Italics ours.)

And Mr. Hamilton said: "But how can this force be exercised on the States collectively? It is impossible. It amounts to war between the parties. Foreign powers also will not be idle spectators. They will interpose, and a dissolution of the Union will ensue." (5th Mad. Pap. 140 and 200.) And no such right or power can be found auywhere in the Constitution.

The late James C. Carter, of New York (a native of New England), one of the greatest lawyers this country has ever produced, said: "I may hazard the opinion that if the question had been raised, not in 1860, but in 1788, immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, whether the Union, as formed by that instrument, could lawfully treat the secession of a State as rebellion and suppress it by force, few of those who participated in forming that instrument would have answered in the affirmative."

In November, 1860, the New York Herald said: "Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation

might repel invasion. . . . Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question."

The question was maturely considered by Mr. Buchanan and his Cabinet at the close of his administration, and it was unanimously determined that no such right existed.

One of the resolutions of the platform of the Chicago Convention, on which Mr. Lincoln was elected, and which he reaffirmed in his first inaugural, was the following:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of

crimes."

To show that Mr. Lincoln was fully cognizant of the fact that he was committing this "gravest of crimes" when he caused his armies. to invade the Southern States, we will give his own definition of the meaning of the terms "invasion" and "coercion," as contained in his speech delivered at Indianapolis on his journey to Washington to be inaugurated in February, 1861. He asks: "What, then, is 'coercion? What is 'invasion? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with hostile intent toward them be 'invasion?' I certainly think it would, and it would be 'coercion' also if South Carolinians were forced to submit."

Is not this exactly what he did to South Carolina and to all the other Southern States? And is it not true that this "gravest of crimes" having been committed by him without the authority of Congress, or any legal right, was the sole cause why the Southern people went to war? We know that such is the fact, and surely no further authorities can be necessary to show that the South was right on both of the only two questions involved in the war; and if it had not resisted and fought under the circumstances, in which it was placed, it would have been eternally disgraced.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »