Volume II Part 25 (2/2)
”In the midst of other cares, however important, we must not lose sight of the fact that the war-power is still our main reliance. To that power alone can we look, for a time, to give confidence to the people in the contested regions that the insurgent power will not again overrun them.”
The intelligent reader will observe that this plan of the President of the United States to restore States to the Union, to occupy the places of those which he had been attempting to destroy, does not contain a single feature to secure a republican form of government, nor a single provision authorized by the Const.i.tution of the United States. With his usurped war-power to sustain him in the work of destruction, he found it easy to destroy; but he was powerless to create or to restore. In the former case, he had gone imperiously forward, trampling under foot every American political principle, and breaking through every const.i.tutional limitation. In the latter case, he could not advance one step without recognizing sound political principles and complying with their dictates. On each foundation he must construct, or his work would be like the house founded on the sand.
It will now be shown what the true principles are, and then that the President of the United States perverted them, misstated them, and sought to reach his ends by groundless fabrications--as if he would enforce a fiction or establish a fallacy to be as good as truth. It might be still farther shown, if it had not already become self-evident, that this method was pursued with such a perversity and wickedness as to render it a characteristic feature of that war administration on whose skirts is the blood of more than a million of human beings.
The whole science of a republican government is to be found in this sentence of the Declaration of Independence, made by the representatives of the United States of America, in Congress a.s.sembled, on July 4, 1776. It says:
”That, to secure these rights [certain unalienable rights], governments are inst.i.tuted among men--deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to inst.i.tute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Thus it will be seen that civil and political sovereignty was held to be implanted by our Creator in the individual, and no human government has any original, inherent, just sovereignty whatever, and no acquired sovereignty either, beyond that which may be granted to it by the individuals as ”most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” ”Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” says the Declaration of Independence. All other powers than those thus derived are not ”just powers.” Any government exercising powers ”not just” has no right to survive. ”It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it,” says the Declaration of Independence, ”and to inst.i.tute a new government.”
Who, then, had a right to ”inst.i.tute” a republican government for Louisiana? No human beings whatever but the people of Louisiana; not the strangers, not the slaves, but the manhood that knew its rights and dared to maintain them. Under what principles, then, could a citizen of Ma.s.sachusetts, whether clothed in regimentals or a civilian's dress, come into Louisiana and attempt to set up a State government? Under no principles, but only by the power of the invader and the usurper. If the true principles of a republican government had prevailed and could have been enforced when Major-General Butler appeared at New Orleans, he would have been hanged on the first lamp-post, and his successor, Major-General Banks, would have been hanged on the second.
Under what principles, then, could the Government of the United States appear in Louisiana and attempt to inst.i.tute a State government? As has been said above, it was the act of an invader and a usurper. Yet it proposed to ”inst.i.tute” a republican State government. The absurdity of such intention is too manifest to need argument. How could an invader attempt to ”inst.i.tute” a republican State government? an act which can be done only by the free and unconstrained action of the people themselves. It has been charged that this and every similar act of the President of the United States was in violation of his duty to maintain and observe the requirements and restrictions of the Const.i.tution, and to uphold in each State a republican form of government. To specify, the following is offered as an example. He did ”proclaim, declare, and make known--
that, whenever any number of persons, not less than one tenth of the number of voters at the last Presidential election, shall reestablish a State government, which shall be republican [!] and in no wise contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government of the State.”
One tenth of the voters can not establish a republican State government, which requires the consent of the people of the State to make its powers just, as has been shown above. Therefore, such a government had not one element of republicanism in it. But what is astonis.h.i.+ngly remarkable is the stultification of requiring the one tenth of the people to ”reestablish a State government, which shall be republican and in no wise contravening said oath.” Either he did not know how a republican State government was ”inst.i.tuted,” or, if he knew, then he was a partic.i.p.ant in that perversity and wickedness, which was above charged to be the characteristic of his war Administration.
It will now be shown how he sought ”to enforce a fiction or establish a fallacy to be as good as truth.” Of the government thus established by one tenth of the voters, he says:
”Such shall be recognized as the true government of the State, and the State shall receive thereunder the benefits of the const.i.tutional provision which declares that 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.'”
It is proper here to inquire who and what was the tenth to whom this power to rule the State was to be given. It will be seen, by reference to the proclamation, that each voter of the one tenth, in order to be qualified, is required to take an oath with certain promises in it, which are prescribed by an outside or foreign authority. This condition of itself is fatal to a republican State government, that ”derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.” Free consent--not cheerful consent, but unconstrained and unconditioned consent--is required that ”just powers” may be derived from it. In this instance, the invader prescribes the requisite qualifications of the voter, and makes it a condition that the government established shall ”in no wise contravene” certain stipulations expressed in the oath taken to give the qualification. A State government thus formed derives its powers from the consent of the invader, and not ”from the consent of the governed.” It has no ”just powers” whatever. It is a groundless fabrication. Yet the President of the United States declared, ”The State shall receive thereunder the benefits of the const.i.tutional provision which declares that 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.'” Is not this an attempt, while pretending to establish, to destroy true republicanism?
Now, let the reader bear in mind that these remarks relate to Louisiana alone, of which more remains to be told; and that there were eleven States that withdrew from the Union, whose restoration was to be effected on this rotten system, in addition to several const.i.tutional amendments, the adoption of which was to be effected and secured by the votes of these groundless fabrications, in which a fiction was to be considered as good as the truth. Having attained all these facts which are yet to be stated, he may begin to form some estimate of the remnants of the Const.i.tution, and of the probable existence of any true union of the States.
To proceed with the narration. Under the above-mentioned proclamation of the President of the United States, Major-General Banks issued at New Orleans, on January 11, 1864, a proclamation for an election of State officers, and for members of a State Const.i.tutional Convention.
The State officers, when elected, were to const.i.tute, as the proclamation said, ”the civil government of the State under the Const.i.tution and laws of Louisiana, except so much of the said Const.i.tution and laws as recognize, regulate, or relate to slavery, which, being inconsistent with the present condition of public affairs, and plainly inapplicable to any cla.s.s of persons now existing within its limits, must be suspended.” The number of votes given for State officers was 10,270. The population of the State in 1860 was 708,902. The so-called Government was inaugurated on March 4th, and on March 11th he was invested with the powers. .h.i.therto exercised by the military Governor for the President of the United States. On the same day Major-General Banks issued an order relative to the election of delegates to a so-called State Convention. The most important provisions of it defined the qualifications of voters.
The delegates were elected entirely within the army lines of the forces of the United States. The so-called Convention a.s.sembled and adopted a so-called Const.i.tution, declaring ”instantaneous, universal, uncompensated, unconditional emanc.i.p.ation of slaves.” The meager vote on the Const.i.tution was, for its adoption, 6,836; for its rejection, 1,566. The vote of New Orleans was, yeas 4,664, nays 789.
This state of affairs continued after the close of the war. Violent disputes arose as to the validity of the so-called Const.i.tution. The so-called Legislature elected under it adopted Article XIII as an amendment to the Const.i.tution of the United States, prohibiting the existence of slavery in the United States.
It will be seen from these facts that the State of Louisiana was not a republican State inst.i.tuted by the consent of the governed; that its Legislature was an unconst.i.tutional body, without any ”just powers,” and that the vote which it gave for the amendment of the Const.i.tution of the United States was no vote at all; for it was given by a body that had no authority to give it, because it had no ”just powers” whatever. Yet this vote was counted among those necessary to secure the pa.s.sage of the const.i.tutional amendment. Was this an attempt to enforce a fiction or to establish the truth? Such are the deeds which go to make up the record of crime against the liberties of mankind.
The proceedings in Arkansas to ”inst.i.tute” a republican State government were inaugurated by an order from the President of the United States to Major-General Steele, commanding the United States forces in Arkansas. At this time the regular government of the State, established by the consent of the people, was in fall operation outside the lines of the United States army. The military order of the President, dated January 20, 1864, said:
”Sundry citizens of the State of Arkansas pet.i.tioned me that an election may be held in that State, in which to elect a Governor; that it be a.s.sumed at that election, and thenceforward, that the Const.i.tution and laws of the State, as before the rebellion, are in full force, except that the Const.i.tution is so modified as to declare that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,” etc.
The order then directs the election to be held for State officers, prescribes the qualifications of voters and the oath to be taken, and directs the General to administer to the officers thus chosen an oath to support the Const.i.tution of the United States, and the ”modified Const.i.tution of the State of Arkansas,” when they shall be declared qualified and empowered immediately to enter upon the duties of their offices.
The reader can scarcely fail to notice the novel method here adopted to modify or amend the State Const.i.tution. It should be called the process by ”a.s.sumption”--that is, a.s.sume it to be modified, and it is so modified. Then the President orders the officers-elect to be required to swear, on their oath, to support ”the modified Const.i.tution of the State of Arkansas.” Now, unless the Const.i.tution was thus modified by a.s.suming it to be modified, these State officers were required by oath to support that which did not exist. But it was not so modified. No Const.i.tution or other instrument in the world containing a grant of powers can be modified by a.s.sumption, unless it be the Const.i.tution of the United States, as shown by recent experience. Yet the chief object for which these officers were elected and qualified was to carry out these so-called modifications of the State Const.i.tution. This adds another to the deeds of darkness done in the name of republicanism.
Meantime some persons in the northern part of Arkansas, acting under the proclamation of December 8, 1863, got together a so-called State Convention on January 8, 1864, and adopted a revised Const.i.tution, containing the slavery prohibition, etc. This was ordered to be submitted to a popular vote, and at the same time State officers were to be elected. President Lincoln acceded to these proceedings after they had been placed under the direction of the military commander, General Steele. The election was held, the Const.i.tution received twelve thousand votes, and the State officers were declared to be elected. Then Arkansas came forth a so-called republican State, ”inst.i.tuted” by military authority, and, of course, received the benefit of the const.i.tutional provision, which declares that ”the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” It should be added that Arkansas, thus ”inst.i.tuted” a State, was regarded by the Government of the United States as competent to give as valid a vote as New York, Ma.s.sachusetts, or any other Northern State, for the ratification of Article XIII, as an amendment to the Const.i.tution of the United States, prohibiting the existence of slavery in the United States.
The vote was thus given; it was counted, and served to make up the exact number deemed by the managers to be necessary. Thus was fraud and falsehood triumphant over popular rights and fundamental law.
<script>