Volume II Part 51 (1/2)

Who shall decide? Which is sovereign, Mr. Lincoln and his proclamation or the Const.i.tution? The Const.i.tution says:

”This Const.i.tution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

Was it thus obeyed by Mr. Lincoln as the supreme law of the land? It was not obeyed, but set aside, subverted, overturned by him. But he said in his oath:

”I do solemnly swear that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Const.i.tution of the United States.”

Did he do it? Is such treatment of the Const.i.tution the manner to preserve, protect, and defend it? Of what value, then, are paper const.i.tutions and oaths binding officers to their preservation, if there is not intelligence enough in the people to discern the violations, and virtue enough to resist the violators?

Again the report says:

”We understood from him that no terms or proposals of any treaty or agreement looking to an ultimate settlement would be entertained or made by him with the authorities of the Confederate States, because that would be a recognition of their existence as a separate power, which under no circ.u.mstances would be done; and, for a like reason, that no such terms would be entertained by him for the States separately.”

Now the Const.i.tution of the United States says, in Article X:

”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Const.i.tution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Within the purview of this article of the Const.i.tution the States are independent, distinct, and sovereign bodies--that is, in their reserved powers they are as sovereign, separate, and supreme as the Government of the United States in its delegated powers. One of these reserved powers is the right of the people to alter or abolish any form of government, and to inst.i.tute a new one such as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness; that power is neither ”delegated to the United States by the Const.i.tution nor prohibited by it to the States.” On the contrary, it is guaranteed to the States by the Const.i.tution itself in these words:

”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Const.i.tution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Mark the words, ”are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” No one will venture to say that a sovereign State, by the mere act of accession to the Const.i.tution, delegated the power of secession. The a.s.sertion would be of no validity if it were made; for the question is one of fact as to the powers delegated or not delegated to the United States by the Const.i.tution. It is absurd to ask if the power of secession in a State is delegated to the United States by the Const.i.tution, or prohibited by it to the States. No trace of the delegation or prohibition of this power is to be found in the Const.i.tution. It is, therefore, as the Const.i.tution says, ”reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Convention of the State of New York, which ratified the Const.i.tution of the United States on July 26, 1788, in its resolution of ratification said:

”We do declare and make known ... that the powers of Government may be rea.s.sumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Const.i.tution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same... .

Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid can not be abridged or violated,” etc., etc., ”we, the said delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of the State of New York, do, by these presents, a.s.sent to and ratify the said Const.i.tution.”

With this and other conditions stated in the resolution of ratification, it was accepted and approved by the other States, and New York became a member of the Union. The resolution of Rhode Island a.s.serts the same reservation in regard to the rea.s.sumption of powers.

It is unnecessary to examine here whether this reserved power exists in the States respectively or in the people; for, when the Confederate States seceded, it was done by the people, acting through, or in conjunction with, the State, and by that power which is expressly reserved to them in the Const.i.tution of the United States. When Mr. Lincoln, therefore, issued his proclamation calling for seventy-five thousand men to subjugate certain ”combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” he not only thereby denied the validity of the Const.i.tution, but sought to resist, by military force, the exercise of a power clearly reserved in the Const.i.tution, and reaffirmed in its tenth amendment, to the States respectively or to the people for their exercise. But, in order to justify his flagrant disregard of the Const.i.tution, he contrived the fiction of ”combinations,” and upon this basis commenced the b.l.o.o.d.y war of subjugation with all its consequences. Thus, any recognition of the Confederate States, or of either of them, in his negotiations, would have exposed the groundlessness of his fiction. But the Const.i.tution required him to recognize each of them, for they had simply exercised a power which it expressly reserved for their exercise. Thus it is seen who violated the Const.i.tution, and upon whom rests the responsibility of the war.

It has been stated above that the conditions offered to our soldiers whenever they proposed to capitulate, were only those of subjugation.

When General Buckner, on February 16, 1862, asked of General Grant to appoint commissioners to agree upon terms of capitulation, he replied:

”No terms, except unconditional and immediate surrender, can be accepted.”

When General Lee asked the same question, on April 9, 1865, General Grant replied:

”The terms upon which peace can be had are well understood. By the South laying down their arms, they will hasten that most desirable event, save thousands of human lives and hundreds of millions of property not yet destroyed.”

When General Sherman made an agreement with General Johnston for formal disbandment of the army of the latter, it was at once disapproved by the Government of the United States, and Sherman therefore wrote to Johnston:

”I demand the surrender of your army on the same terms as were given to General Lee at Appomattox, on April 9th, purely and simply.”

It remains to be stated that the Government which spurned all these proposals for peace, and gave no terms but unconditional and immediate surrender, was inst.i.tuted and organized for the purposes and objects expressed in the following extract, and for no others:

”We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Const.i.tution for the United States of America.”