|
CONFEDERATED
GOVERNMENT - STRONGEST OF ALL GOVERNMENTS? Alexander H. Stephens, 1868. |
“ The Grecian,
the Germanic, as well as
our own first Confederation,
were founded, . . .
upon . . .” “ The principle of voluntary consent.” (Page 525 “ That Constitution which sets forth the terms of Union between Free, Sovereign, and Independent States— each retaining its separate Sovereignty, and only delegating such powers to all the rest as are most conducive, by their joint exercise, to its own safety, security, happiness, and prosperity, as well as most conducive to the like safety, security, happiness and prosperity of all the other members of the great American Federal Republic— the work of their own voluntary creation! ” (Page 532.) (Page 533.) “All Governments of this character are formed upon the assumption that it is for the best interest of all the members of the Confederation to be united on such terms as may be agreed upon, each faithfully performing all its duties and obligations under the Compact.” “ No State, therefore, would withdraw, or be inclined to withdraw, without a real or supposed breach of faith, on the part of her Confederates, or some of them. If the complaint were real, the derelict States would right the wrong, rather than incur the loss attending the failure to do so.” “ If the complaint were imaginary, and a State should withdraw, without a real and substantial cause, the withdrawal would be but for a very brief period of time.” “ For such State would soon find that she had lost more than she had gained in her new position.” (Page 535.) “ The Union might cease to exist, and yet the States continue to exist, as before! . . .” (Page 538.) “ My opinion was, that it only required those masses to see, feel, and appreciate the great advantages of that Union to them; and to realize the fact that a Compact, broken by them, could not longer be binding upon others, . . .” “ There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no million of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have been none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self (Page 536.) Military force was “ called out to prevent the exercise of this right of withdrawal on the part of the seceding States—” “ Just as all perturbations and irregularities are adjusted in the solar system, by the simple law of gravitation, from which alone— it sprung in the beginning, and on which alone its continuance, with its wonderfully harmonious workings, depends! ” A CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE LATE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES Alexander H. Stephens, 1868. (Page 54.) Constitutional View, COLLOQUY II. Thirteen of those bodies now known as States of “the Union,” were originally, or before the date of our common history, Colonies of Great Britain. These were all distinct political organizations, having no connection whatever between each other, except that the inhabitants of all were common subjects of the Government of Great Britain. They were all planted at different times, and had different forms of government; that is, the Constitutions or Charters of no two of them were alike, though all were founded upon the representative principle. They were all free Democratic Governments. (Page 55.) It is true, in 1643, a Convention or Union of some sort for their own mutual protection, was formed between two or more of the New England Colonies, . . . which lasted until 1683-4,* when it was dissolved by the abrogation of their original charters by the British Government. * Bancroft’s History United States, vol. ii, p. 127. Subsequently, in 1754 and 1765, attempts were made by certain Colonies to form some sort of a general Union or Confederation of all these Colonies for their better protection, in combined efforts against the Indians, . . . These efforts failed. No Union of any sort resulted from them. The last and successful effort was made in 1774. This was at the instance of Virginia. This was after what is known as the Boston Port Bill passed the British Parliament, and after the act of Parliament again changing the Charter of the Massachusetts Colonial Government, and against her consent. These measures awakened a profound sensation in all the Colonies, though the blow was aimed directly at one of them only, yet they all saw that the principle involved the rights and liberties of each severally. (Page 56.) The first moving cause which aroused all the Colonies to that concert of action which ended in the Revolution, was the direct assault of the British Government upon the chartered Rights of Massachusetts.* * Curtis’s History of the Constitution, vol. i, p. 6. This, and not the tax on tea, . . . is what caused the Colonial Legislature of Virginia to call for a Congress of all the Colonies. † † Curtis’s History of the Constitution, vol. i, p. 11. It was then that the cry went up, from the St. Croix to the Altamaha, “the cause of Boston is the cause of all.” The violation of the chartered rights of Massachusetts, prompted the call for a general Congress. This was the moving cause. This appeal, made by Virginia, was responded to by the Colonies generally. The result was the assemblage of deputies from twelve Colonies, which met at Philadelphia on the fifth of September, 1774. This is the first Convention or Congress of the Colonies from which the present “ Union” sprung. (Page 57.) It was determined to be a Congress of separate, distinct political bodies. In all its deliberations each Colony was to be considered as equal, and each was to have an equal vote and voice upon all questions coming before it, without reference to the number of delegates sent up by the respective Colonies; for the object of all was the defence and preservation of what was claimed to be the inalienable right of each.* * Elliot’s Debates, vol. i, p. 42, et sequens. The object of the meeting of this Congress may be seen from some of the powers conferred on their delegates in several of the Colonies: VIRGINIA: “ To consider of the most proper and effectual manner of so operating on the Commercial connection of the Colonies with the Mother country, as to procure redress for the much MARYLAND: “ To attend a General Congress to assist one general plan of conduct operating on the Commercial connection of the Colonies with the mother country, for the relief of Boston and the preservation of American Liberty.” SOUTH CAROLINA: “ To consider the acts lately passed, and bills depending in Parliament with regard to the Port of Boston and Colony of Massachusetts Bay; which Acts and Bills, in the precedent and consequence, affect the whole Continent of America. Also the grievances under which America labors, by reason of the several acts of Parliament that impose taxes or duties for raising a revenue, and lay unnecessary restraints and burdens on trade, etc.” The defence of the rights of Massachusetts was a leading object with all. Note on page 21 of Judge Upshur on the Nature of the Federal Government. (Page 26.) Constitutional View, COLLOQUY I. “ We have many Histories of this war,” . . . “ Their most entertaining parts are chiefly devoted to a portrayal of the terrible Conflict of arms, scenes of battlefields,” . . . “ the skill of Generals, and deeds of valor and prowess” . . . “ but none of them have taken any thing like an unimpassioned and Philosophical view of the real causes of this great scourge; or how it might have been and ought to have been prevented, or how like results and calamities, under like circumstances, may hereafter be avoided.” (Page 27.) * Since the preparation of these sheets for the press, the writer has seen, for the first time, a copy of the first volume of “ The Civil War in America, by John W. Draper, M. D., LL. D., of the University of New York.” There is a very profound philosophy running through this book, . . . as to “ There is a political force in ideas which silently renders protestations, promises, and guarantees, no matter in what good faith they may have been given, of no avail, and which makes Constitutions obsolete. Against the uncontrollable growth of the anti This kind of Philosophy accounts for the war, as it might very readily account for most of the evils which afflict mankind, by simply assigning it and them to the general depravity of human nature. Note: the summary of Woodrow Wilson— Division and Reunion, 1829 — 1889. CHAPTER IX. (Page 211.) Secession. “ It was for long found difficult to deny that a State could withdraw from the federal arrangement, as she might have declined to enter it. But constitutions are not mere legal documents: they are the skeleton frame of a living organism; and in this case the course of events had nationalized the government once deemed confederate.” (Page 212.) Secession and Civil War. “ The South had not changed her ideas from the first,” . . . “ The South withdrew from the Union because, she said, power had been given to a geographical, a sectional, party, ruthlessly hostile to her interests;” . . . “ Both she and her principles, it turned out, had been caught at last in the great national drift, and were to be overwhelmed. Her slender economic resources were no match for the mighty strength of the nation with which she had fallen out of sympathy.” (Page 28.) Mr. Greeley, one of the ablest and fairest writers of the class I have alluded to, in his “American Conflict,” treats the whole war as the culmination of a strife, for more than half a century, about “ Negro Slavery,” with scarcely a passing word upon the subject of the nature of the Government of the United States, or attempting to show that it had any rightful authority whatever over the subject matter of this strife. (Page 514.) Constitutional View, COLLOQUY XI. It has been stated by high authority, that “ the right of Secession ” is not a plant of Southern origin ”— “ it * Mr. Buchanan— History of his Administration, p. 86. (Page 510.) The Massachusetts Legislature in 1803, . . . That State, it is said, then declared, by solemn resolve, “ That the annexation of Louisiana to the Union, transcends the Constitutional power of the Government of the United States. It formed a new Confederacy to which the States united by the former Compact are not bound to adhere.” (Page 511.) On the same subject, on the 22d of February, 1845, the same body adopted another series of Resolutions, in which the following occurs: “Resolved, * * * and as the powers of Legislation granted in the Constitution of the United States to Congress, do not embrace the case of the admission of a foreign State, or foreign territory, by Legislation, into the Union, such an act of admission would have no binding force whatever on the people of Massachusetts.” Moreover, it is in strict accordance with this general understanding that several of the Eastern States, upon the call of Massachusetts,† assembled by their deputies in the well † Niles’s Register, vol. vii, p. 161. * Niles’s Register, vol. vii, p. 269. (Page 513.) That these States did intend to secede and withdraw from the Union, unless their grievances complained of were redressed, there can be no doubt, and that these eminent jurists thought then that they had a right to do so, is equally clear. The news, however, of the treaty of peace which had been signed at Ghent, on the 24th day of December, 1814, was soon after received in this country, and put an end to all other proceedings under this movement of these States. It is true, the Convention was generally odious, at the time, to the people of a large majority of the States, and has been ever since. This was from the fact that the threatened Secession was in time of war, and a war which had been undertaken mainly, at the instance of these States, in defence of their shipping and navigating interests. CONSTITUTIONAL Status of Slavery. Lecture by Hon. Robert Toombs, January 24, 1856. (Page 642.) But it is objected that religious instruction is denied the slave. While it is true that religious instruction and privileges are not enjoined by law in all of the States, the number of slaves who are in connection with the different churches abundantly proves the universality of their enjoyment of those privileges. And a much larger number of the race in slavery enjoy the consolation of religion than the efforts of the combined Christian world have been able to convert to Christianity out of all the millions of their countrymen who remained in their native land. The immoralities of the slaves, and of those connected with slavery, are constant themes of abolition denunciation. They are lamentably great; but it remains to be shown that they are greater than with the laboring poor of England, or any other country. And it is shown that our slaves are without the additional stimulant of want to drive them to crime, we have at least removed from them the temptation and excuse of hunger. Poor human nature is here at least spared the wretched fate of the utter prostration of its moral nature at the feet of its physical wants. Lord Ashley’s report to the British Parliament, shows that in the capital of that empire, perhaps within hearing of Stafford House and Exeter Hall, hunger alone daily drives thousand of men and women into the abyss of crime. It is also objected that our slaves are debarred the benefits of education. This objection is also well taken, and is not without force. And for this evil the slaves are greatly indebted to the abolitionists— formerly in none of the slaveholding States, was it forbidden to teach slaves to read and write, but the character of the literature sought to be furnished them by the abolitionists caused these States to take counsel rather of their passions than their reason, and to lay the axe at the root of the evil, better counsels will in time prevail, and this will be remedied. It is true that the slave, from his protected position, has less need of education than the free laborer who has to struggle for himself in the welfare of society; yet, it is both useful to him, his master, and society. The want of legal protection to the marriage relation is also a fruitfull source of agitation among the opponents of slavery. The complaint is not without foundation; this is an evil not yet removed by law, but marriage is not inconsistent with the institution of slavery as it exists among us, and the objection, therefore, lies rather to an incident than the essence of the system. But, in the truth and fact, marriage does exist to a very great extent among slaves, and is encouraged and protected by their owners; and it will be found, upon careful investigation, that fewer children are born out of wedlock among slaves, than in the capitals of two of the most civilized countries of Europe— Austria and France: in the former, one half of the children are thus born— in the latter, more than one fourth. But even in this we have deprived the slave of no pre-existing right. We found the race without any knowledge of or regard for the institution of marriage, and we are reproached with not having as yet secured to it that, with all other blessings of civilization. To protect that and other domestic ties by laws forbidding, under proper regulations, the separation of families, would be wise, proper, and humane, and some of the slaveholding States have already adopted partial legislation for the removal of these evils. But the objection is far more formidable in theory than in practice. The accidents and necessities of life, the desire to better one’s condition, produce infinitely a greater amount of separation in families of the white than ever happen to the colored race. This, is true, even in the United States, where the general condition of the people is prosperous. But it is still more marked in Europe. The injustice and despotism of England towards Ireland has produced more separation of Irish families, and sundered more domestic ties within the last ten years than African slavery has effected since its introduction into the United States. The twenty millions of freemen in the United States are witnesses of the dispersive injustice of the old world. Government Education Is Broken? Abraham lincoln: Secession, and Slavery. LEGAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SECESSION. FREE Speech AND ASSEMBLY Giving Thanks for choosing Lawful Self-Governance: Isonomia.US The Re-Union Party could Offer the Choice of political candidates, who are rejected by the Democrat and Republican Organizations. |
|---|