J. A. RICHARDSON. oi by J. A. Richardson A. B. CALDWELL. Publisher ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1914 Copyright. 1914 A S. CALDWELL ERRATA On dedication page read "Georgia" after "19th." Page 77 in bottom line, read "ever" instead of "even." Page 86, 7th line from bottom, after "does," read "not." Page 120, 7th line of paragraph 2, read "they" after "though." Page 179, in 6th line of paragraph 3, read "irrepressible," instead of "irresponsible." Page 183, 4th line, read "away its," instead of "awaits." Pag* 396, read "Is it," instead of "It is." Line 2. Page 452, 12th line from bottom, read "contradicted," instead of "contracted." Page 471, 9th line, read "fought," instead of "bought." Page S12, 13th line, read "feed," instead of "fee." f * Other evident mistakes can be detected by the reader. To THE PALMETTO GUARDS--COMPANY C OF THK 19rs REGIMENT, VOLUNTEERS-- wfcose battlefields are in no less than six States; whose Victories are very many; whose drawn battles are very few; whose defeats are nont; whose fallen comrades sleep i* shallow graves as far separated as Gettysburg is from Olustee; whose muster roll number:d 126 brave hearts; whose fighting force afte the battl? of the Second Manassas numbered but two able for duty; and whose consecrated and unfaltering devotion to the cause of Constittrtional liberty amid unsurpassed trials and privations for four long years commend them to the veneration of their poster ity, and att lovers of law and liberty to the end of time: THESE PAGES ARE DEVOTEDLY, AFFECTIONATELY. AND PA TRIOTICALLY DEDICATED BY THEIR COSTRADE AND SINCERE FRIEND. J. A. Richardson. PREFACE. The writer makes no apology for issuing this volume. Its prime object is to refute the atrocious accusations against the South before, during and after the war; and to do this within such a limited space as will be adapted to the wants of the gen eral reader. We have written this book in the spare moments of a busy life. It has required about three years to accomplish our task. During that time ou rresearches have been extensive and thor ough. We challenge an investigation of the facts upon which our conclusions are based. They are incontrovertible. Before the war, we were most bitterly and world-widely de nounced because of the institution of slavery, for which both sec tions were equally responsible. During the war, we were officially, and otherwise, denounced as traitors to our common country, and as rebels against the plan of the Constitution we had sworn to obey; and this, too, by those who had declared this same Constitution, "A Compact, with Death and a league with Hell." After the war, we were still called rebels and traitors. As late as July 12, 1911, Senator Heyburn, of Idaho, in the United States Senate, denounced our cause as "infamous." When re buked by John Sharp Williams, he asked, "Well, was it a glorious cause?" .We propose to enlighten this benighted Westerner and others, and to prove that it was a glorious cause. If in this volume any expressions seem harsh and bitter let it not be attributed to any lingering animosity on the part of the author, but to the facts that falsely proclaimed him a traitor. Let it not be attributed to the passing of slavery, for, as we have shown in the proper place, that this institution would have been abolished without the war; and, besides, eighty per cent of the Southern soldiers did not own slaves. Nor let it be attributed to the failure of the Confederacy, but to the base misrepresenta tions and vituperations heaped on the people of the South. The home of secession was not in the South, but in the North, in the midst of the enemies of the Constitution, the anti-slavery agita tors of the North. It was there the abusers of the South and the Constitution lived, and there they multiplied till they were sufficiently strong to disregard both the demands of the Consti tution and the rights of the South. We, therefore, ask that all our words which are seemingly se vere be regarded in the light of the facts. If still ft is believed they are too severe, write them by the side of the words of James G. Blaine, found in this volume (Chap. XXXIX) and if they prove to be one-tenth as cruel and unauthorized as the words of "the plumed knight," our apologies are already made. Just one other word here; every true Southern veteran is an American citizen of the truest type, as loyal as the loyalest, as willing to imperil his life in the interests or defense of the com mon country, as the most patriotic son of any section of this great American Republic. But they -will never confess that their cause was not that of the fathers that of the common Consti tution of the American States forming the American Union. They believe that their unparalleled devotion to the American Constitution has a tendency to enshrine it in the American heart as never before; and to give it a place of security unknown be fore their great sacrifice for its principles. If constitutional gov ernment is to be preserved unimpaired for the coming genera tions, it must be, and it will be through the conservative spirit of the South. The Author. TABLE OF CONTENTS. I.--The Part Played by the South in Establishing Ameri can Independence ..................................................._..._ 17 II.--The Institution of Slavery.................................................. 33 III.--The Two Compacts, The Two Federations................ 53 IV.--The Two Compatcs, Continued............................._......... 62 V.--The Ordinances of the States Ratifying the Consti tution ................................................................................ 70 .--The Real Nature of the Government of the United States ........................._...._.............._...._.._.........._.......,, 81 VII.--"The Unwritten Constitution"........................................ 97 VIII.--Ignorance as to the Constitution An Encourage ment to the Violation of Its Terms..................._...103 IX.--Lincoln's Celebrated Cooper Institute Speech..............! 13 X.--The Cooper Institute Speech, Continued--.......................124 XI.--The Cooper Institute Speech, Continued...........--.._.136 XII.--What the South Demanded in the Sixties.......--.........146 XIII.--The South's Demands for the Constitution, Con tinued, Also the Speech of Toombs, Continued--...161 XIV.--The South and the Constitution Subordinated to t An Unconstitutional Platform, and the Govern ment to An Unconstitutional Policy..._.............._.....176 XV.--The South, Her Accusers, Efforts to Preserve the Union and the Constitution Unimpaired............._...187 XVI.--Sovereignty and Secession..............................................201 XVII.--Sovereignty and Secession, Continued................_....223 XVIII.--The North the Real Rebels..................._................_243 XIX.--A reply to Charles Francis Adams....................._._254 XX.--Fourteen Substitutes for the Constitution Grouped.,278 XXI.--Coercion Under the Smooth Phrases of Executing the Laws and Protecting Public Property.............295 XXII.--Lincoln's First Inaugural Address..--...................--...305 XXIII.--Who Caused the War?.--...................--................322 XXIV.--Who Caused the War? (Continued)............-....-333 XXV.--Who Inaugurated the War?................................~......345 XXVI.--Lincoln's First Call for Troops........................~....~~355 XXVII.--Absolutism ..............................................................367 XXVIII.--An Effort to Unite the North, Retain the Bor der States, and Reconcile the Foreign Nations: The Trent Affair...............----.....................----.....----377 XXIX.--The Emancipation Proclamation............................--390 XXX.--Other Facts Connected With Emancipation........--414 XXXI.--A Wider View and Reply to Distinguished Authors ............................................................................427 XXXII.--A False War-Power Under the Plea of Necessity ........................................................----.....----441 XXXIII.--Significant Facts and Important Witnesses.....--451 XXXIV.--A Sketch of Lincoln's Life......................................463 XXXV.--Insanity of Genius........................................................473 XXXVI.--The Fall of the Confederacy and the Arrest and Imprisonment of Davis..........................................488 XXXVII.--The Imprisonment of Davis (Continued)......--507 XXXVIII.--The Failure to Try Davis and Its Meaning......517 XXXIX.--The Treatment of Prisoners.........------..................544 XL.--Sherman's March Through Georgia, South C arolina and North Carolina.----------.--..............--....572 XLL--The Confederate Navy..................--------....................588 INTRODUCTION In these pages it is assumed that all arguments not based on the Constitution are irrelevant. In discussing questions of right under the Constitution we necessarily deal with facts, authorities, Legislatures, Conventions, and the Constitution itself. 1787.--The Government itself, in its very formation, declared the right of secession, in expressed terms of the Constitution, by granting the right of nine States to secede from the former Union, which was declared to be "perpetual." 1788.--The Federalist, in answer to questions, often declared that the proposed Constitution required "the States to be dis tinct and independent sovereignties." 1790.--Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, under Wash ington, wrote to Thomas Jefferson, "Unless the Bill for the As sumption of the State Debts be passed there will be a separation of the States." He regarded the right of secession as an indis putable fact; and this at the time of the first administration of the Government. 1799.--During the next administration the Assembly of Vir ginia passed a set of resolutions, and sent them to all the States. The following six States replied, endorsing them: New Hamp shire (Webster's native State), New York, Connecticut, Dela ware, Vermont, and Massachusetts, Webster's adopted State. These resolutions declare, not less than four times, that the Con stitution is a Compact between the States. They are in part as follows: "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that in view of the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the Compact, to which the States are Parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument, con stituting the Compact, as no farther valid than they are author ized by the grants enumerated in that Compact ; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said Compact, .the States who are parries thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within 10 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH their respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties appertaning to them. "That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret that a spirit has, in sundry instances, been manifested by the Federal Government to enlarge its powers by forced construc tions of the Constitutional Charter, which defines them; and that indications have appeared of a design to expound certain phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of powers in the former Articles of Confederation were the less liable to be misunderstood), so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases, and so as to consolidate the States, by de grees, into one Sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable result of which would be, to transform the present Republican System of the United States into an absolute, or, at least, a mixed Monarchy." (Works of Hamilton, Vol. 6, page 530). These are the resolutions of seven States at a time when the meaning of the Constitution was not debatable. 1799.--New Hampshire, revising her Constitution, copied from that of Massachusetts these words: "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence." 1803.--Judge Tucker, Professor of Law in the William and Mary University in Virginia, a jurist and publicist of acknowl edged ability, a strong Union man and a distinguished patriot, said, in the Appendix to his edition of Blackstone's Commentary: "The Federal Government, then, appears to be the organ through which the United Republics communicate with foreign nations and with each other. Their submission to its operations is vohmiary; and its councils, its engagements, its authority, are theirs, modified and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame in which thcv have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they hare been swallowed up. Each is still a perfect State, still a Sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent." 1814.--It is universally conceded by reputable historians that the New England States would have seceded in 1814 had not RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 11 the war with England terminated when it did. (Portland, Oregonian, 1902). 1824.--William Rawle, an eminent jurist of Pennsylvania, U. S. District Attorney under Washington, and, by Washington offered the Attorney Generalship of the United States, wrote "Ramies View of the Constitution," a celebrated work, adopted as a text-book at West Point. In this work Mr. Rawle says, "The Union is an association of the people of Republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those Republics. The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and the best, is not essential to the being of a Republic: but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved; and, therefore, the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the State itself to retain or abolish the principle of representa tion ; because it defends on itself whether it will continue a mem ber of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principles on whch all our political systems are founded: which is that the people have, in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed; a right ingredient in the original composition of the Government: which though not expressly avowed, was mutually understood. "As to the remaining States, among themselves, there is no opening for doubt. Secession may reduce tfiem to the smallest integer admitting combination. They would remain united under the same principles, and regulations, among themselves, that now apply to the whole. For a State cannot be compelled to withdraw from the Union, and, therefore, if two or more States determine to remain united, although all the others desert them, nothing can be discovered in the Constitution to prevent it." 1830..--In the United States Senate, speaking on the Foote Resolutions, Daniel Webster said: "// (Constitution) is tlie original bargain the Compact let it stand let the advantage of it be fully enjoyed. The Union is itself too full of benefits to be hazarded in propositions for changing its original basis. I go for the Constitution as it is. But I am resolved not to 'submit in silence to accusations which impute to us (the North) a disposition to evade the Constitutional Compact." Note the 12 BICHAEDSONS DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH fact that Webster here calls the Constitution "the Compact" and "the Constitutional Compact." 1833. In the Senate of the United States, speaking on Calhouns Resolution, Daniel Webster said of the Constitution: "If contract, it rests on plighted faith, and the made of redress would be to declare the whole void. States may secede, if a League or Compact." It is true, in this speech, he denied that the Constitution is a compact, saying, "The Constitution means a Government, not a Compact, flatly contradicting the Webster of three years ago, contradicting the the ratifying ordinances of his native State and adopted State, contradicting Washington, Hamilton, Jeffersonand every other authoritative expounder of the Constitution. But he admits in this speech all that the South demanded in the Sixties, viz: "States may secede, if a League or Compact." 1834. Judge Story issued his celebrated work, "Story on the Constitution," in which he made a great effort to prove that the Government of the Unitd Stats is a "National Government proper, not Federal. In this work he is frank to admit the right of secession, if the Constitution is a Compact between the States, thus fully agreeing with Daniel Webster of 1833. In commenting on Judge Tuckers Commentary on the Constitution, he says: "The obvious deductions, which may be, and indeed have been drawn, from considering the Constitution as a Compact between the States, are that it operates as a mere treaty, or convention between them, and has an obligatory force upon each State no longer than it suits its pleasure, or its consent continues; that each State has a right to judge for itself in relation to the nature, extent and obligations of the instrument, without being at all bound by the interpretation of the Federal Government, or by thaf of any other State; and that each State retains the power to withdraw from the Confederacy, and to dissolve its connec tion, when such shall be its choice; and may suspend the opera tions of the Federal Government, and nullify its acts within itsown territorial limits, whenever, in its own opinion, the exergency of the case may require. These conclusions may not always beavowed; but they flow naturally from the doctrines which we have under consideration. They go to the extent of RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 13 reducing the Government to a mere Confederacy." (Story on the Constitution, Vol. 1, Book 3, Sec. 321). Thus Judge Story is compelled to admit that if the Constitu tion is a Compact the right of Secession is "an obvious deduc tion"; that it admits of no doubt. It is known that Lincoln called it a Compact. Therefore, according to Story and Web ster, he violated "an obvious deduction of the Constitution." 1844.--When the admission of Texas was a question, the Leg islature of Massachusetts passed the following resolution: "That the project of the annexation of Texas, unless arrested on the threshold, may drive these States into a dissolution of the Union." Massachusetts still believed that the Constitution was a Compact up to sixteen years before the election of Lin coln ; and that Massachusetts could be driven into secession. 1845.--On the 22nd day of February, 1845, the Legislature of the same State (Massachusetts), resolved: "As the powers of Legislation granted in the Constitution of the United States to Congress, do not embrace the case of ad mission 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." (Lunt's His tory of the Origin of the War, pp 467-S). These resolutions were discussed in Congress, and no man raised his voice against them on the ground that they were un constitutional. Besides, Nile's Register contained six leading editorials on these resolutions, but while condemning them, the editor did not question their constitutionality. Thus fifteen years before the War New England and the Country at large did not question the right of secession. 1848.--Abraham Lincoln, in the House of Representatives, said: "Any people anywhere have the right to rise up and throw off the existing Government, and establish one that suits them better. This is a most valuable right; a right we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing Government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionise, and make their own of so much of the territory 0s they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of 14 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, inter mingled with, or near about them-, who may oppose their move ments. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old Icavs, but to break up both and make new ones." This very strong secession speech was made just thirteen years before the war. 1855.--On the 23rd day of February, 1855, Senator Wade from Ohio, said, in the United States Senate: "Who is to judge, in the last resort, of the violation of the Constitution of the United States by the enactment of a law? Who is the final arbiter? The General Government or the States in their Sovereignty? Why, Sir, to yield that point is to yield up all the rights of the States to protect their own citizens, and to consolidate the Gov ernment into a miserable despotism. I tell you, sir, whatever you may think of it, if this bill pass, collisions will arise between the Federal and the State jurisdictions,--conflicts in which the States will never yield; for the more you undertake to lead them with acts like this the greater will be their resistance. "I said there were States in this Union whose highest tribunals had adjudged that bill to be unconstitutional, and that I was one of those who believed it unconstitutional; and that under the old resolutions of 1798 and 1799, a State must not only be the judge of that, but of the remedy in such a case." This was only five years before the war. It was at this time the judgment of all the courts. Yet Lincoln declared in 1861 that the Federal Government was the judge in such cases; and that he was the Government. 1860.--On the 24th day of May, 1860, the Senate of the United States passed, by a vote of 36 to 19, a set of resolutions, in troduced by Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, the first of which reads as follows: "That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same, acted severally as free and independent Sov ereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each against dangers, domestic as well as foreign; and that any inter meddling of any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of others, on any RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 13 pretext whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitu tion, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their domestic peace and tranquility--objects for which the Constitu tion was formed-- and, by necessary consequences, tends to weaken and destroy the Union itself." Twenty States voted for this resolution. One State divided its vote. Four voted against it ,and eight refused to vote. The States refusing to vote were of the numbers that had nullified the Fugitive Slave Law. And this was the very year before the war less than a year before the inauguration of Lincoln. Thus we have an unbroken chain of evidence from the time the Constitution was framed to the inaugural address of Presi dent Lincoln that each State was an "independent Sovereignty," and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exer cise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent." All the evidence we have given is based, principally, on the fact that the Constitution is a Compact between the States. That it was a Compact is sufficiently shown by the evidence produced in this introduction. No eminent jurist ever denied it till 1826, whejn Chancellor Kent's Commentaries appeared: and he makes no argument based on the Constitution, but simply deals in bare assertions. The Constitution itself says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government: and shall protect each of them against invasion and domestic violence." This is the language of a Master, or a Lord, to his servant. Mark the words, "shall protect." They are compulsory. The servant has no choice except to obey. To refuse is disloyalty rebellion. The United States themselves were no exception. What then shall be said of the invasion of the Southern States of this Union by the Federal Government? Can the Govern ment justify itself on the ground that these States had actually seceded? Did not that Government assert to the contrary? If, then, from the standpoint of the Federal Government, these States were still in the Union, how could that Government invade them without violating the Constitution? May we not ask if 16 BICHAEDSON'S DEFENSE .OP THE SOUTH Booth's bullet did not do more to establish Lincoln in the affec tion of the great American heart than did his loyalty to the Constitution ? Forty Years After the War, the "American Crisis Biographies" was written. In its preface are words like these: "The Civil War will not be treated as a rebellion, but as the great event in the history of our Nation, which after forty years it is now recognised to ha^e been. 1914.--Today Robert E. Lee, the great military leader of the Southern cause, is in the Hall of Fame--placed there by the Federal Government. Thus the Government itself, in less than a half century after the war, has declared that the cause of the South was not the cause of rebels, but of patriots, true to the Constitution of the Union and all its sacred pledges. If Lincoln Had Failed where would be his honors today? Does success in violating a Nation's Constitution merit imperishable honors? The glare of success amid the shouts of triumph may conceal, for a time, the wrongs of a violated Constitution, but not foreter. Would he not have used the same means in cither case? Has unconstitutional success any real merit greater than unconstitutional failure? If Lincoln Had Survived the War with what difficulties would he have been confronted? Deprived of the sympathy his as sassination brought him from all civilization, including the South, he would have heard in the halls of Congress the cry -from the lips of Thaddeus Stevens and his followers, "there is no longer any Constitution." He would have been called upon to justify, on a Constitutional bases, a policy that sacrificed eight billions of property, and, approximately, one million of patriotic lives. Could he have done it, and been the recipient of the honors now be stowed on his name? CHAPTER I. THE PART PLAYED BY THE SOUTH IN ESTABLISHING AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE. The South sounded the first note that fired the Colonial heart and pointed the way to independence. It was in 176-4 in the House of the Burgesses of Virginia. The man who sounded that note was no other than the eloquent orator in homespun clothes, known simply as Patrick Henry. That speech immor talized him and the occasion. Thomas Jefferson is the high au thority that "Mr. Henry certainly gave the first impulse to the ball of the Revolution." The correctness of this position is easily established. At the same time the facts present a most interesting chapter in the history of the American Colonies. It was in March 1764 when the British Parliament passed resolutions preparatory to levying a revenue on the colonies by a stamp act. The passage of these resolutions was communicated to the House of Burgesses of Vir ginia by the colonial agent. After mature consideration a com mittee was appointed to prepare "an address to the King, a mem orial to the Lords, and a remonstrance to the House of Com mons." On the 18th day of December 1764 this committee made its report which was amended and then concurred in. They were firm, clear and strong in declaring the Constitutional ex emption of the Colonies from taxation. Yet the tone was that of the suppliant, and the picture it drew was that of anticipated suffering. It thus indicated no opposition beyond remonstrance. In January 1765, the famous Stamp Act was passed, to be effective the next November. The act was regarded as a great wrong from one extremity of the Colonies to the other, yet no sign of resistance was manifest. Both the press and the people seemed disposed to submit as the only alternative. The Penn sylvania Gazette on the 30th of May, 1765, said, "We hear the sum of money arising from the new stamp duties in North Amer ica, for the first five years, is chiefly to be applied towards mak- 18 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH ing commodious post-roads from one province to another, erect ing bridges where necessary, and other measures equally im portant to facilitate an extension trade"--the tone of conciliation and submission. All was confusion. What to hope, what to fear, what to be done were questions on every lip. Some entertained faint hopes that a united remonstrance from all the colonies would induce England to change her policy. But these were comparatively few. Many considered submission unavoidable. The idea ol resistance by force seemed to have had no advocates. No heart seemed bold enough to conceive it. The most intrepid now skulk ed, yet it was an unwilling skulk. They were not bold enough to speak words of defiance. It was now that Patrick Henry stepped to the front, the dauntless hero of the hour. His friends knew his worth, and earnestly desired that he should be a member of the House of Burgesses. William Johnson had been elected a member of the Burgesses. He was induced to resign and accept the position of coroner. Henry was elected to fill the vacancy on the first of May 1765. On the 20th of May he was added to the com mittee on the Courts of Justice. In that House of Burgesses was Peyton Randolph, the King's Attorney-General, distinguished for his eloquence and virtues of heart; Richard Bland, the finished scholar and profound logi cian; Edmund Pendleton, accurate and clear in speech, having few equals; George Wythe, the logician, keen and sarcastic in repartee; and Robert Henry Lee, called the Cicero of the House, at home in all the walks of literature and science. Among these illustrious orators now stood the Plebian Henry. He had not their polish nor their erudition. But he had a constancy of soul that no power could shake; a genius that no erudition could cope with; a boldness that knew no fear; and an imagination "that colored with the felicity of Titian." With becoming modesty he waited for those who had remon strated with the King, the Lords, and the House of Common* to renew their opposition to the Stamp Act. He waited till within three davs of the close of the session and then introduced RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 19 his celebrated resolutions on the Stamp Act. These resolutions were as follows: "Resolved: That the first adventurers and settlers of this, his Majesty's Colony and dominion, brought with them, and transmitted to their posterity, and all other his Majesty's sub jects, since inhabiting in this, his Majesty's Colony, all the privi leges and immunities, that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain. "Resolved: That by two royal charters, granted by King James the First, the colonists aforesaid, are entitled to all the privileges, liberties and immunities of denizens and natural born subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realms of England. "Resolved: That the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, and the easiest mode of raising them, and are equally affected by such taxes themselves, is the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, and without which the ancient Constitution can not subsist. "Resolved: That his Majesty's liege people of this most an cient colony, have uninterruptedly enjoyed the right of being thus governed by their taxes and internal policies, and that the same have never been forfeited, or any other way given up, but hath been constantly recognized by the King and people of Great Britain. "Resolved: Therefore, that the General Assembly of this col ony have the sole right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony; and that every attempt to visit such power in any person or persons whatsoever, other than the General Assembly aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy British, as well as American freedom." Mr. Henry retained a copy of these resolutions. They were found among his papers on his death. They were sealed and thus endorsed: "These written resolutions passed the House of Burgesses in May, 1765. They formed the first opposition to the Stamp Act, and the scheme of taxing America by the British 20 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH Parliament. All the Colonies, either through fear, or want of opportunity to form an opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had remained silent. I had been for the first time elected a Burgess, unacquainted with the forms of the house, and the members that composed it. Finding the men of weight averse to opposition, and the commencement of the tax at hand, and that no person was likely to step forth, I determined to ven ture, and alone, unadvised, and unassisted, on a blank leaf of an old law book wrote the wthin. Upon offering them to the house, violent debates ensued. Many threats were uttered and much abuse cast on me, by the party for submission. After a long and warm contest, the resolutions passed by a very small ma jority, perhaps of one or two only. The alarm spread through out America with astonishing quickness, and the ministerial par ty were overwhelmed. The great point of resistance to British taxation was universally established in the colonies. This brought on the war, which finally separated the two countries, and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a na tion. "Reader! whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere, practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. P. Henry." These are the celebrated resolutions introduced by Patrick Hen ry in the Virginia Burgesses in May 1765. He was justly proud of them. He therefore most carefully preserved a copy, by seal ing them, and directing that they be opened only by his executor. They are therefore genuine. These resolutions differ from all previous remonstrances and addresses as to the time and circumstances, and as to the legis lative body addressed. All previous state papers and remon strances against the Stamp Act were addressed to the legisla ture of Great Britain. These resolutions of Henry's were ad dressed to the legislature of Virginia. All previous remon- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 21 strances were couched in most respectful terms, and In tones of submission. These resolutions of Henry's were in defiance of Great Britain. All previous remonstrances were made before the Stamp Act was passed. These resolutions of Henry's were introduced and passed after the Stamp Act had become a law, and further remonstrance was useless. All previous remon strances induced Great Britain to believe the Colonies would sub mit gracefully to encroachments upon their rights. The fifth and last resolution of Henry's charged, "that any attempt to visit such power in any person or persons whatsoever, other than the general assembly aforesaid has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom," a direct charge that the King and lords, and commons of Great Britain were guilty of tyranny and despotism. The daring boldness of this charge startled the assembly. The colonies were weak and Great Britain the mightiest power of the world. They were without means of defense, and Great Britain was well-equipped. Well might the Burgesses have been alarmed.. The resolutions were resisted not only by the royalists, but by a number who afterwards were among the ablest cham pions of American liberty. Let us now have Mr. Jefferson's account of the transaction. It is in these words: "Mr. Henry moved and Mr. Johnston sec onded these resolutions successively. They were opposed by Messrs. Randolph, Bland, Pendleton, Wythe, and all the old mem bers whose influence in the house, had, till then, been unbroken. They did it, not from any question of our rights, but on the ground that the same sentiments had been, at their preceding ses sion, expressed in a more conciliatory form, to which the answers were not yet received. But torrents of sublime eloquence from Henry, backed by the solid reasoning of Johnston prevailed. The last however and strongest resolution was carried but by a single vote. The debate on it was most bloody. I was half a student, and stood at the door of communication between the house and the lobby (for as yet there was no gallery) during the whole de bate and vote; and I well remember, that, after the members on the division were told and declared from the chair, Peyton Ran- 22 RICHABDSOFS DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH dolph (the Attorney-General) came out at the door where I was standing, and said as he entered the lobby, 'By God, I would have given 500 guineas for a single vote:' for one vote would have negatived the resolution. Mr. Henry left the town that evening; and the next morning before the meeting of the House, Col. Peyton Randolph, then of the Council, came to the Hall of Burgesses, and sat at the Clerk's desk till the house bell rang, thumbing over the volumes of journals, to find a precedent of expunging a vote of the house, which, he said, had taken place while he was a member or clerk of the house, I do not recollect which. I stood by him at the end of the table, a considerable part of the time, looking on, as he turned over the leaves; but I do not recollect whether he found the erasure. In the mean time, some of the timid members who had voted for the strong est resolution had become alarmed; and as soon as the house met, a motion was made and carried to expunge it from the Journals. There being at that day but one printer, and he en tirely under the control of the Governor, I do not know that this resolution ever appeared in print. I write this from memory: but the impression made on me at the time was such as to fix the facts indelibly in my mind. I suppose the original journal was among those destroyed by the British, or its obliterated face might be appealed to. And here I will state that Burk's state ment of Mr. Henry's consenting to withdraw two resolutions, by way of compromise with his opponents is entirely erroneous." As to the erasure of the fifth resolution, Mr. Jefferson is sus tained by Judge Paul "Carrington who was a member of the Bur gesses of 1765; and is also sustained by the fact that the journal of the day does not contain the 5th resolution, but does contain the other four. Mr. Jefferson says, "By these resolutions and his manner of supporting them Mr. Henry took the lead out of the hands of those who had, theretofore, guided the proceedings of the House, that is to say of Pendleton, Wythe, Bland, and Randolph. Mr. Wirt, Henry's biographer says of him, "It was in the midst of this magnificent debate, while he was descanting on the tyranny of the obnoxious act that he exclaimed in a voice of RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 23 thunder and with the look of a god, 'Caesar had his Brutus; Charles the first his Cromwell--and George the third'--('Trea son,' cried the speaker, 'treason, treason,' echoed from every part of the house. It was one of those trying moments which is decision of character. Henry faltered not for an instant; but rising to a loftier attitude, and fixing his eye of the most deter mined fire on the speaker he finished his sentence with the firmest emphasis) may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it." The fire kindled by Henry's resolutions spread to all the other colonies, and the spirit of resistance rapidly grew, until "the whole continent was in a flame;" and the Stamp Act was render ed impracticable. Thus we have sustained our point, that it was in the South the first note was sounded that fired the colonial heart and point ed the way to liberty and independence. Again: When, in 1775, the export of powder from England was prohibited, and the seizure of powder and arms in the sev eral provincial magazines followed, who was it that first fired the Virginia Colony and kindled the flame of patriotism throughout the American Colonies, and then encouraged the spirit of revolt against the insult ? It was no other than the same brave Patrick Henry. He first of all aroused by his eloquence universal indigna tion against the conduct of Governor Dunmore, who clandestinely had removed in the dead of the night twenty barrels of powder from the magazine in Williamsburg and placed it on board a vessel in the James River. He saw British oppression at the very door. He knew the sword of Great Britain was lifted to strike, and that it would sooner or later fall on unarmed and de fenseless people. He knew that even the removal of twenty bar rels of powder in such an emergency would put the colony at a great inconvenience. He therefore resolved that the Colony it self should strike before an overwhelming force should come down on them. He resolved that all subjection and deference to roy alty should be dissolved; and that the resources of the country should be developed; that the people might know and realize their strength by being brought together; that an inevitable revolution 24 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH should begin in the Virginia colony; that the martial prowess of the entire country should be awakened; and "that the soldiery should be animated by that proud and resolute confidence which a successful enterprise in the commencement of a contest never fails to inspire." These sentiments were then avowed by him to two confiden tial friends, Col. Richard Morris, and George Dabney. He said to Morris and Dabney, "You may in vain talk to them (the peo ple) about duties on tea, etc. These things will not affect them. They depend on principles too abstracted for their comprehension and feeling. But tell them of the robbery of the magazine, and that the next step will be to disarm them, you bring the subject home to their bosoms and they will be ready to fly to arms to defend themselves." He did not hesitate. He requested the members of the In dependent Company of Hanover and the County Committee to meet him in arms at New Castle on the 2nd day of May on busi ness of highest importance. He eloquently exposed to them the plan of the British Ministry to reduce the colonies to subjection by robbing them of all the means of defending their rights. He pictured in vivid colors the fields of Lexington and Concord still red with the fresh blood of their countrymen. He showed them that the plunder of the Williamsburg Magazine was but a part of a general plan of subjugation. He admonished them that the time had now come when they must decide whether they would live freemen and leave the heritage of freemen1 to their children, or become the hewers of wood, and drawers of water for the tools of a corrupt and tyrannical ministry. He painted the country in a state of subjection. In that picture were the dark lines of abject debasement, and vassalage, at which they shud dered with horror and indignation. He then drew another pic ture. It was the picture of prosperous homes in a land of lib erty and security. Under the touch of his genius the outlines glowed like the noon-day sun. In its light they saw rich fields of waving grain, and seas white with the sails of commerce. He reminded them that the God of right who had overthrown Phar aoh in the Red Sea was the same and unchangeable God, and RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 25 that his strong arms would be their help; that they should snatch the prize o? liberty then within their grasp. He assured them they had no time to lose; that their enemies in the colony were few and weak, and by quick and vigorous work they could com pel the restoration of the powder, or secure an order on the king's revenues in the hands of the receiver-general, which could fairly balance the account; and that the Hanover volunteers would thus strike the first blow in the colony in the great cause of American liberty, and would cover themselves with unfading laurels. This was the substance of his speech. The coloring was his own--inimitable touch. The effect was wonderful. The meet ing was a flame. The decision was immediate. The powder should be returned, or counterbalanced by a reprisal. The Cap tain of the Hanover Volunteers resigned his commission in Hen ry's favor, and accepted the commission of Lieutenant. A de tachment was sent across the river to the residence of Richard Corbin, the King's receiver-general, to demand from him three hundred and thirty pounds, the estimated value of the powder. If he refused he was to be made a prisoner, in which case he was to be treated with all possible respect, and brought to Doncastle's ordinary, about sixteen miles above Williamsburg, where the detachment was to rejoin the main body. The detachment failed to find Corbin at home. The marching of this gallant Company headed by a man of Henry's distinction produced a wonderful effect. Companies sprung up on all sides and hastened to allign themselves under Henry's banner, swelling the number of armed men to at least five thousand. The royalists were filled with dismay. Lady Dunmore fled to the man-of-war lying off Little York. Even patriots of Wil liamsburg were alarmed and denounced the act as that of rash ness. Messengers were sent to Henry, and he was entreated to desist from his purpose: Henry was inflexible. The messen gers were retained that they might not report his strength. The march was continued with the greatest possible celerity. In vain Governor Dunmore issued his proclamation denouncing the move- 26 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH ment and calling upon the people to resist it. The people were deaf to his call. He filled the palace with arms, and ordered up a detachment of marines on the 4th of May, 1775. Still the Governor was much alarmed and sent messengers to meet Henry with the receiver-generals bill of exchange for the sum required. This was accepted by Henry as satisfactory; and the following receipt was given by Henry: "Doncastle's ordinary, New Kent, May the 4th, 1775, received from the Hon. Richard Corbin Esq. his Majesty's receiver-general 330 Ibs., as a compensation forthe gunpowder lately taken out of the public magazine by the Governor's order; which money I promise to convey to the Virginia delegates at the general Con gress, to be, under their direction, laid out in gunpowder for the Colony's use, and to be stored as they shall direct, until the next colony convention or general assembly; unless it shall be neces sary, in the mean time, to use the same to the defence of this colony. It is agreed, that in case the next convention shall de termine that any part of the said money ought to be returned to his Majestys' said receiver-general, that the same shall be done accordingly. Patrick Henry." Thus Henry not only sounded the first note that pointed the way to American independence, but he and his brave Hanover Indepents struck the first blow in resistance to British usurpation. Two days later, on the 6th of May, 1775, Governor Dunmore issued a second proclamation denouncing a "certain Patrick Hen ry and a number of deluded followers" charging them with re bellion, with dispatching "letters to divers parts of the country," and, "exciting people to join in these outrageous and rebellious practices," and with committing "other acts of violence and par ticularly in extorting from his Majesty's receiver-general the sum of three hundred and thirty pounds under pretence of re placing powder I thought proper to order from the magazine.... strictly charging all persons upon their allegiance, not to aid, abet or give countenance to the said Patrick Henry, or any other persons concerned in such unwarrantable combinations, but on the contrary to oppose them and their designs by every means; RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 27 which designs must otherwise inevitably involve the whole coun try in the most direful calamity, as they will call for vengeance of offended majesty, and the insulted laws, to be exerted here to vindicate the Constitutional authority of the Government." The threats and denunciations of the Governor only rendered Henry the more conspicuous and the more honorable. It is said he was in the act of departing for Congress when the intelligence from Williamsburg reached him. Having now accomplished his purpose he resumed his journey to Philadelphia. His jour ney was that of the triumph of a conqueror. A large body of patriots accompanied him as far as the Potomac. From all di rections messengers came bearing the thanks and applause of his assembled countrymen. So many were the messengers and mes sages that the necessity of halting to read them converted the journey of one day into a triumph of many. Thus Henry not only uttered the first words that put the ball of the Revolution in motion, but he had also the distinction of leading the first military movement in Virginia in support of the same great cause. r~ Poets have sung and orators have declaimed the rockbound coast to which the Puritan fathers came. Let poet's song and the orator's eulogy immortalize the Puritan's home and his con tributions to progress and civilization. The Puritan deserves much. Let honor's wreath crown his brow. But compare Pur itan and Cavalier in the great work each did in laying the deeper foundation of our greatness as a people, and who deserves the greater credit ? We have just shown that it was in the Old Do minion that the first voice was lifted to point the way to free dom from England's tyranny. It was another son of the South that gave us the immortal Declaration of Independence. When the long and hard struggle for liberty came who but the great Washington led the Continentals to victory? When that war had seen its darkest days, when courage and endurance had wrenched victory from the jaws of the British lion at Yorktown, and hope and light and cheer greeted a new republic who was it that was placed at the helm to direct the Government in its starting career to greatness and prosperity? 28 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH Between the last gun of the Revolution and the first gun of the great War between the States seventy-two years intervened, and fifteen presidents had ruled. Nine of the fifteen presidents were Southerners, and fifty of the seventy-two years are to be credited to the South. To these facts add the long line of able jurists from Jrhe South headed by Chief Justice Marshal, and who can deny the dominating influence of the South in the early history of this Republic? As with the statesmen and jurists, so with the military leader ship. The Cavalier is a born soldier. He has a genius for war. An army of Cavaliers would have charmed the heart of Napo leon. In the war of 1812-14 who were the champion soldiers and who were the successful leaders? In the war with Mexico what section furnished the great bulk of enthusiastic soldiery? Begin with 1765 and see the ruling hand of the South shaping events. Later see Virginia bearding the British lion, and see all the colonies aflame with enthusiasm as the result. See this same guiding hand giving strength and symmetry to the Republic at home and respect abroad. Turn your eyes to the efforts of the South in extending the borders of this republic from the sea board to great Central Valley, and beyond the mountains to the waters of the Pacific. Whose brain chiefly conceived and execut ed the purchase of Louisiana7 Through whose influence came the annexation of Texas? To what section are we chiefly indebted for the great Southwest? Whose liberal hand donated to the Union the great Northwest? Notwithstanding these facts bringing unfading luster to the Southern section of our country this section is the constant sub ject of abuse. On the 24th day of August, 1909, Miss C. T. A. Duffy, of Atlanta, Ga., called attention of the editor of the At lanta Georgian to an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which deserves all and more the editor has said in reply. We copy the editorial in full as well as the letter of Miss Duffy: "IS THE SOUTH EFFETE AND DECADENT? "The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a work which is found upon the shelves of numberless libraries in the South. On many topics RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 29 of information it is absolutely fair and just. But in the name of a people whose contributions to American statesmanship and literature have challenged the world's profound respect, the Georgian most indignantly protests against the libelous and un truthful strictures which this supposed repository of knowledge puts upon the South's intellectual activities. Our attention has been called to the article in question by the following letter, which explains itself: Editor Atlanta Georgian: Please turn to page 360 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (New Twentieth Century Edition, subject, "American Literature--Con ditions and Characteristics of American Literature." You will find this statement: "Since the Revolution days, when Virginia was the nurse of the statesmen, the few thinkers of Americans born south of Mason and Dixon's line--outnumbered by those belonging to the single state of Massachusetts--have commonly migrated to New York or Boston in search of a university training. In the world of letters, at least, the Southern states have shown reflected light; nor is it too much to say that mainly by their connection with the North the Carolinas have been saved from sinking to the level of Mexico or the Antilles. Whether we look to In dia or Louisiana, it would seem that the tropical sun takes the poetic fire out of the Anglo-Saxon veins, and the indolence which is the concomitant of despostism has the same benumbing effect. Like the Spartan marshaling his helots, the planter lounging among his slaves was made dead to art by a paralyzing sense known as his own superiority." Will the editor of the Georgian please advise in its columns if a statement like this in what is known as the Great Encyclo paedia Britannica stands unrebuked by the Southern press? And speak frankly on the point as to the standing of the South as to its literature in comparison with the other sections of this country. Very truly, (Miss) C. T. A. Duffy, Atlanta, Ga., August 24, 1909. 30 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH In reply to the question which is raised in the foregoing let ter, the Georgian desires to say several things. First, by way of introduction, the writer of the article on American literature in the Encyclopaedia Britannica was dis qualified alike by his prejudice and by his ignorance from hand ling the grave topic which he undertook to discuss. And whatever may be the glitter of his name it remains that he has ignored the patent facts which are known and read of all men. Even the most superficial acquaintance with the bare sign boards of American history will suffice to show that for the first 80 years of our national life the South not only dominated the councils of government, but furnished leaders for every great forward movement, whether of politics or morals. Starting with the Revolution itself, the South furnished its pen in Thomas Jefferson, its tongue in Patrick Henry, and its sword in George Washington. The father of the Constitution was James Madison. By universal consent, the greatest of all the judges who have worn the ermine of the supreme bench was John Marshal. Whether in the forum, or on the field, it is difficult to find the counterpart of nigged "Old Hickory." Of the illustrious trio of American statesmen--Calhoun, Clay and Webster,--two were from the South. The commander-in-chief of the American forces in the Mex ican war was Winfield Scott. And when the great division came in 1861 it was to one whose childhood was cradled in the forest of Kentucky that the call from the dominant party in the republic was made--Abraham Lincoln. The man who succeeded him in the executive chair when the assassin's bullet struck him down was likewise from the South-- Andrew Johnson. In the very forefront of modern commanders the severest of Northern critics have placed Robert E. Lee. Colonel Henderson, of the British army, in two superb vol umes, has told the matchless story of the valley campaigns of RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 31 Stonewall Jackson; and the work has become a text book in the military schools of England. The man who discovered anesthesia--a boon which mitigated the suffering of 40 centuries and proclaimed the era of modern surgery--was Crawford W. Long. Does this argue an effete civilization or justify that the South has shown by reflected light? If the South has really become effeminate, what a commentary is made by this humiliating fact upon the native American stock? For in this section there has been less admixture with foreign elements than in any other; and the blood which ripples the veins of the South to-day is essentially the blood which settled the republic--the blood of Cowpens and Kings Mountain--the blood of Yorktown. And on this last historic field which the South furnished to the struggle for independence went down the flag of the country which is today represented in the world of books by the Encyclo paedia Brittannica. The number and character of our educational nurseries will also dispel the slanderous accusation that it is mainly by our connection with the North that we have been saved from sink ing to the level of decadent Spain. Preposterous! In the effort to retrieve the consequences of war, the South has been severely handicapped; but no one of candid mind can contemplate what the South has accomplished since Appomattox without marveling at the result. She furnished most of the battlefields of the great conflict. She lost her slave proper ty, which aggregated millions of dollars. Besides paying her own war debt, she has also paid her proportionate share of the debt, which was contracted to subdue her. Yet what miracles of growth has she performed in four short decades! Today it is universally conceded that the South is the most prosperous section of the whole republic--yet she has only skirt ed the margin of her possibilities. 32 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH Nor is it true--to quote the fervid language of this grandilo quent writer--that the tropical sun has taken the poetic fire out of the Anglo-Saxon veins. Sidney Lanier, Edgar Allan Foe, Henry Timrod, Paul H. Hayne, John R. Thompson, Theodore O'Hara and James Barron Hope--these give the lie to this libel. While the South has published no encyclopaedias--while she has never sought to exploit her literary wares--while she has been willing for New England to manufacture most of the books which have vaunted the achievements of American men of let ters--she is nevertheless writing for the ages. The only American author whose books have been translated into seventeen different languages is Joel Chandler Harris. Audubon, the great naturalist--John and Joseph LeConte, styled the genii of the scientific heavens--Matthew F. Maury, the great geographer--these are some of the South's contribu tions to the republic of letters. In the book market of the present day there are few writers who either in popularity or in merit precede John Pox, Mary Johnston, Frances Hodgson Burnett, Ellen Glasgow, James Lane Alien, Thomas Nelson Page and scores of others whose names are household words. The earliest inspirations of the genius of Mark Twain were caught from the dock scenes on the lower Mississippi. And the brilliant imagination of Winston Churchill was quick ened in the sunny edge of the Land of Dixie. No, Miss Duffy, the Georgian is not willing for the article to which you have called attention to go unrebuked. It is wholly out of keeping with the spirit which should pervade a work of this kind. Moreover, it is slanderous to a people whose achievements, whether in the realm of intellect or of action, are such that they can dispense with flattery if only the sheer truth is told." CHAPTER H. THE INSTITUTION OP SLAVERY. Right or wrong slavery is the one institution of the ages. Its Latin name, servus, correctly translated a slave, comes from servire, to preserve. The servi, or slaves were captured in war, and their lives were preserved on the condition of their becom ing the absolute property of their masters. It is doubtless as old as war, and hence existed long before the historic age. It existed in ancient Egypt, Chaldea, Arabia and all the wide East. Poets, Philosophers, and Statesmen alike regarded it as regular and natural. Aristotle defended it on the ground of "diversity of races." Plato in his perfect state only desired that no Greek should become the slave of a Greek. Abraham, the father of the faithful, was a slave owner. With him God made a covenant for the redemption of mankind. Some of his slaves were "born" such. Others were "bought with money." Job, whom God called "his servant," had many slaves. When Christ came into this world he found slavery here. "The man without sin" rebuked all sin, yet he did not rebuke the relation between master and slave. Of a certain Centurion he said, "I have mot found so great faith, no not in Israel." Yet that Centurion was a large slave-owner, Onesimus was an escaped slave of Philemon. Both the slave and his master were convert ed under the preaching of Paul. Onesimus was sent back by Paul to his master. Martin Luther wrote: "He that says slav ery is opposed to Christianity is a liar." The great French preacher, Bousett, near the end of the 17th century, wrote, "To condemn slavery is to condemn the Holy Ghost.'" Must we condemn the Bible because it does not condemn slav ery? All are slaves to a greater or less extent. Freedom itself is not unbridled liberty. It is restricted on all sides by the law, both civil and moral. If restriction of liberty is slavery, freedom it self is a slave. The most civilized races need restriction, but in finitely less than the least civilized. The best government for any people is that which is best adapted to their capacity. Judged by this test who can deny that the humane institution of slavery 34 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH in the South was not the best government for the savages shipped from Africa to this country in the colonial days? When the colonies were first organized the whole civilized world advocated the institution of slavery. Georgia was the only colony of the original thirteen that excluded slavery in her organization. If salvery was right all share equally in the credit of establishing it in this country. If it was wrong all share equally in the wrong. The institution of slavery was the solace of Heaven in com parison to the cruelty of the slavers. Apparently without remorse of conscience by Northern slavers vast numbers of helpless sav ages were crowded into close quarters on these vessels, causing most intense suffering and a very large death rate. Bancroft estimates that prior to 1776 more than six million of negroes had been stolen from Africa, while Reynol estimates the num ber to exceed nine million. It is estimated that at least three million of these came to America; and that no less than a quar ter of a million were thrown into the Atlantic on the voyage. The first state to legalize the slave trade was Massachusetts. The first State to build and equip a slaver was Massachusetts. The first slaver was christened "The Desire"--built and equipped at Marblehead in June 1637. Whatever significance was at tached to the name, "The Desire," of this first slaver, it is certain that the slavers dad more to render North America pro-slavery than all other forces combined. The other New England states followed in the wake of Massachusetts, for the slave trade was very profitable. More than two score slavers from Massachu setts were on the bosom of the Atlantic at once. Not a slaver went from a Southern Colony. The New England States plead in justification of their course the fact that the savages they secured In Africa were already the slaves of the neighboring African tribes. But there was no ex cuse. Besides they captured and enslaved peaceful Indians by the hundreds, and exchanged them for negroes in the Bermudas, Barbardoes and other islands. But if wrong, had the South no part in all these great wrongs? Yes, in these great wrongs all the colonies shared--in the South by purchasing these negroes, BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 35 thus encouraging the slave traffic. She plead in excuse that it was an act of mercy in as much as she found them at her door under most distressing circumstances; and in as much as she gave them life instead of death; comfort instead of suffering and distress; and kindness instead of cruelty. But still it encouraged the slave trade. But again it was very difficult for sympathetic human nature to turn a deaf ear to their misfortunes. When the Declaration of Independence was written, slavery ex isted in all the states. The Revolutionary War was fought to a finish by slave-holding states. When the Constitution was adopt ed slavery existed in all the states except Massachusetts. And Massachusetts freed her slaves out of the regular order. The people had voted for a new state constitution. In that election the question of slavery was not an issue. The new Constitution contained this clause: "All men are born free and equal." The same clause was also in the Virginia Constitution. Seven months after Massachusetts had adopted her Constitu tion a slave known as Quaco Walker, of the town of Barre, Worcester County, left his master, Nathaniel Jennison, and hired himself to two brothers, John and Seth Caldwell. Jennison re claimed and punished his slave. Quaco Walker sued Jennison for damages. Jennison also sued the Caldwells. Quaco gained his suit, obtaining judgment for fifty pounds, damages. Jennison also gained his case, obtaining judgment for twenty-five pounds. Jennison appealed to the Supreme Court and lost. The Cald wells also appealed to the same Court and gained their case. The Supreme Court based its decision on the clause: "All men are born free and equal." Only in this very peculiar man ner did Massachusetts free her slaves before the adoption of the Constitution. This decision was rendered in April 1783, one year and eight months after the battle of Yorktown. Hence the Rev olutionary War was fought by slave-holding states without a sin gle exception. In 1783 the right to hold slaves existed in all the States. In 1790 it existed in all except Massachusetts. As late as 1840 all were slave states except four, viz.: Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and Michigan, In 1850 there were sixteen free states 36 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH and fifteen slave-holding states. In 1860 the right to hold slaves existed in fifteen out of thirty-three states, one of these being New Jersey. Massachusetts, the first to abolish slavery owned slaves al most, if not quite, a half century longer than Georgia, while New Jersey held slaves at least a full century longer than Geor gia. When the Constitution was adopted it was said of the Gov ernment, "Its corner stone is slavery." Mr. Thorpe says, "The South had the Negro on its hands in 1860 and it has him to day chiefly because of the law of climate. And the North did not have the Negro on its hands in 1860, as it does not have him to-day on account of the same law. If it be asked why in 1790 and earlier slavery existed in New England, and in the Middle States in spite of the climate the answer is contained in the ques tion: it existed in spite of the climate. But negro slavery at the North was not profitable excepting as at New York and other markets where slaves were bought and sold as commodi ties. Whether the Northern conscience would have considered slavery a crime had slavery been profitable all the way up to the Canadian border, is a question which Southern men can answer perhaps more accurately than Northern men: for the climate which is necessary to the existence of the negro is the climate of the South rather than the North. If slavery was right at the South at any time it would have been at the North what ever the climate of the North might be." (The Civil War from a Northern standpoint, p. 14). Mr. Thorpe evidently means that had similar conditions ex isted in the North to those of the South the institution of slavery would have continued there as in the South. As late as 1831, as the conditions then were in the North the pro-slavery senti ment was violently strong. In that year Abolitionists were mob bed, assaulted, and threatened with tar and' feathers in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and other states." As late as 1837 a Mr. Lovejoy was actually put to death by a mob of enraged citizens in the state of Illinois. Eleven years before this the abolition of slavery was actually proposed RICHAKDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 37 and earnestly debated in the Legislature of Virginia, and so near was its accomplishment that it lacked only one vote. It was defeated only on the ground of expediency. The love of liberty is innate and shrewd Northerners took advantage of the existence of slavery in the South, making it the occasion of their own political advancement. Appealing to this innate principle they finally inflamed the North against both the South and the Constitution, denouncing the South as the propagandists of slavery and the Constitutoin as "a compact with death and a league with hell." Is comment necessary here? No, he facts speak for themselves. In 1619 a few slaves were sold to private citizens of the Colony of Virginia. The colony tolerated slavery at that time but had not yet legalized it. We believe that Massachusetts was the first of all the colonies to legalize slavery. In 1860 there were 3,950,531 slaves in the South and 247,81? free colored people. All the States at this time had more or less free negroes. Maryland had no less than 83,743 free blacks, only 3,247 less than her entire slave population. Virginia had no less than 58,042 free negroes and North Carolina no less than 30,462. These were the three oldest slave states of the South. The all important fact is learned here that time and patience would have solved the slavery question without that great shedding of blood that distinguished the Sixties. Alas! for reckless, impa tient, cruel, and selfish ambition! The records made by its bloody hand mar every page of history. , The institution of slavery in the South was missionary in the truest and highest sense. Who can begin to estimate the bene fits slavery conferred on the degraded savages brought by Northern slavers from the wilds of Africa, and sold to the South ern planter! Compare these savages with the negroes of the South, and consider the contrast. Brought into immediate con tact with the best type of Christian civilization, their transforma tion was wonderful--almost magical. They found here the best possible conditions for their wants. They were helpless. They were ignorant. Hence they were most dependent. They found here good homes, comfortable beds, warm clothing--an abund- 38 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH ance of nourishing food, and shelter from the storm. Child like in disposition and their wants, their troubles were of short, duration. Their cares, like those of childhood were few. Freed from the heartless mercenaries of the slavers their environmentssoon rendered them contented and happy. Such was their trans formation and such was their intelligence that the North deemed them worthy of the high trust of the ballot after the war. In Effingham County, Georgia, there lived before the war a large slave-holder, Thomas Elkins, a true representative of that class. Among his slaves were two old African chiefs. They frequently expressed a desire to return to their native haunts in Africa. Mr. Elkins said to them, "I will free you and send you back home to Africa." He named the day when he and the negroes would go to Augusta, where he expected to arrange for their safe transportation back to Africa. A few days before the appointed time the two old chiefs came to Mr. Elkins and said, "We no want to go back to Africa. We want to stay with you." If tribal African chiefs who had been surprised and enslaved by other tribal chiefs and sold to New England slave-dealers, whoin turn sold them in the South, were so soon reconciled and contented what shall be said of the contentment of th'e negroesborn and raised here in the atmosphere of kindly and congenial spirits7 Without doubt, if we except children, they were the happiest class of people in all the states,--happiest because they had the fewest cares and fewest perplexities. It is life's carer and perplexities that render life miserable. Thousands of old' ex-slaves now long for the happy days of ante-bellum times. As one of the many thousands of instances of pleasant mem ories we insert this: "Columbus, Ga., May 29, 1913. "Editor Christian Index: "I am sending you a letter, which I think favorably illustrates the kindly feeling which the 'old time Negro' cherishes for Chris tian services rendered them by the whites in the long ago. Theletter which follows just as it was written, bears its own sweet message of gratitude from one who is a complete stranger tome. "Fraternally yours, A. E. Williams." RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 39 "Mr. A. E. Williams, Columbus, Ga. "Dear Sir:--I saw the death of your dear father in the Macon Telegraph. After reading it I thought of my boyhood days. I am a colored man and was born in South Carolina in 1855, and lived in Greenville, S. C., until I was fifteen years old. I remember your unde, Dr. Williams, and I heard him preach several times. Drs. William, Boyce, Manly and Broadus used to preach to colored people in the afternoon in the white churches. "I remember Dr. Williams preached once from the text, "Am I my brother's keeper?" "I have a younger brother named for Dr. Manly, and a son for Dr. Broadus. My wife has a brother named for Dr. Wil liams. I have some of all their works. "I suffer with you in the death of your dear father. "Your humble servant, "M. P. Mbore, "Dawson, Ga." The corn-shuckings were annual occasions of good cheer and abounding pleasure to them. In the fall of each year the ripe corn was gathered in the shuck and piled in a huge heap along the side of a crib open full length at the top. The planter would say to his negroes, "We will now have an old fashioned corn-shucking," at the same time designating the night on which it was to occur. That was enough. The news would spread from plantation to plantation with amazing rapidity. On that night from all quarters would come gay bands of active negroes, and surround that pile of corn. A few of their leaders, having strong lungs, would mount the pile, and, rushing from one end to the other, would lead in their own peculiar songs, while the hundreds of the busy shuckers would join in the loud glad chorus. The African is a born singer. His singing is as distinctively racial as that of the American Indian. The melody of his voice is adapted to all grades of the scale. On clear nights their "Corn Songs" were, at times, heard for miles. Thus to the gala step of the liveliest of songs, the last "nubbin" was soon in the crib. The corn-feast followed in quick order, the stripping of the corn of shucks. Now forming in ranks the shuckers, with exultant spirits and best of humor, marched to the "big house," still sing ing as if they never tired of song. There they found a long im- 40 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH pormptu table loaded with savory meats of various kinds, and delicacies--all fit for a king. The corn-toting followed the feasting. This was to the negroes the richest sport, perhaps, of the corn-shucking season. It was now that the negroes ranked the planter and were themselves the lords of the situation. It has been said that the word "tote" originated among the negroes of the South. Its distinctive meaning is to carry or to bear in your hands. The first fun in this sport was the toting of the master of the "big house." If he should hide out they had the right, by a common law of their own, to search every nook, closet and corner in that house. And when they had found him their shouts of triumph, in loudest glee, announced the fact The submissive master generally rode astride the should ers of some strong dusky hero who carried him around the "big house" and then through it, followed by a great throng of dusky songsters. This was repeated as often as desired. After the master all the other white males considered large enough were treated in the same way. Then came the time for the leading negroes of the place to be toted. Now came the greatest fun of all to them. When a large strong buck negro was tackled he generally felt disposed to show his muscle. Being well in the grasp of as many negroes as could lay hands on him, he would draw himself up, and then with all his might straighten himself, often with the result of bringing all to the ground. When the subject had exhausted his strength he was borne with ease and, like all the others, he top was carried through the "big house" and around it to their full content. The corn-dance followed the toting sport. It was a dance pe culiar to the Southern slaves, and most interesting. Perhaps no dance, not even that of the American Indian, exceeded it in inter est. Originating with the Southern negroes, it died out with their freedom. The scene of the dance was generally out doors on firm smooth ground. Their only instrument of music was the fiddle, accompanied by the clapping of hands and patting on the thigh with the hands, keeping time with the music of the fiddle. Many of them could strike their heels together three times while off EECHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 41 the ground. These were the expert dancers--scientific from their standpoint. The graceful ease with which the dusky he roes would now face the dusky maids and then lead them gal lantly through the intricacies of the dance was par-excellence. Often during the dance the participants would chant the tune to the music of the fiddle and the partings and clappings of the hands. Thus the dance would continue till the wee hours of the night. Perhaps no occasion in all the history of the South, or of the entire nation, was so novel, so unique, and so full of inspiring interest as that of the Corn-shucking season. It was the occa sion of the highest enjoyment and of unbounded enthusiasm to the negro. Negroes have been known to walk ten miles to at tend one of these corn-shuckings. How do these facts compare with the fictions of Uncle Tom's Cabin? In 1769, eighteen years before the framing of the Federal Con stitution, Virginia prohibited the further importation of slaves. In 1827 there were one hundred and six anti-slavery societies in the South against twenty-four in the North, The Southern Societies had 5,150 members, while the Northern had only 920. (Genius Universal Emancipation, Lundy). Between 1824 and 1826 about 2,000 slaves were freed in North Carolina. In 1831 the Virginia Legislature was equally divided on a bill for the gradual emancipation of slaves. It was lost only by the vote of the chairman. "The Liberator," was established by Wm. Lloyd Garrison of Boston in 1831. It was the organ of unconditional aGblitionism. Like Uncle Tom's Cabin, it reasoned from exaggerated false state ments. Yet men and women believed its assertions to be the literal truth. As a result it was not long before sixty-one women and children were murdered in Southampton, Virginia. This was the death knell to the one hundred and six anti-slave societies in the South. // was ever thus. The South was never left unmolested to con trol her own institutions. Here was the "Old Dominion" in good faith trying to adopt measures for gradual emancipation. 42 EICHAEDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH All her benevolent plans were thwarted by the brutal murder of her women and children. Mr. Seward, referring to what had been done for Kansas, said, "And we will invade your States." It was murder and threats that enraged the South. Mr. Garri son believed "Slavery could be abolished only by the dissolution of the Union," yet he advocated the abolition of slavery. There fore he believed in the Constitutional right of Secession. He also believed the Constitution protected slavery. He therefore denounced the Constitution as "a compact with death and a league with hell." Mr. Thorpe says, "The South had the Negro in 1860, and has him now." That is not mere idle speech. When the crisis came in 1860, the question of questions to the people of the South was, "What shall we do with the negro?" He is on our hands. Our relations, it is true, are those of the master and the slave, but they are also most tender and binding. He has our deepest sym pathies. Shall we agree to transport him to some strange land ? We have not the heart for this. It will mean hardships of the deepest kind for him and his people; and in most cases, doubt less, starvation. Our relations to the negro are life-long, and as tender as long. Shall we free him in our midst? The answer is quick: He is ignorant, and helpless, and penniless, and dependent. Be sides many slaves are but recently from the wilds of Africa. Will our wives and daughters be safe in their midst? Very few people of the North realized the gravity of the most serious and the deepest of questions.submitted to the South by the is sues of 1860. The question of dollars and cents weighed little indeed beside the perplexity of the question involving their con sideration for the welfare and the comfort of the poor African slaves who had so long been the subjects of tfieir care and pro tection. Therefore the question of transportation or immediate free dom was dismissed. But there was yet a third way of meet ing the issues, viz: that of secession. This was a Constitu tional right the people of the South not in the least doubted. It was a right the exercise of which the New England States RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 43 had first threatened; and was then acquiesced in by all the States. Southerners thought in this way they would free the consience of the North of the responsibility of supporting an institution they believed to be wrong. They were encouraged in this belief by leading Northern papers that declared the Con stitutional right of secession. The world knows the result. Mr. Thorpe (Civil War from a Northern standpoint, p. 14) says, "Gradually a conviction grew at the North that slavery was wrong, and gradually slavery disappeared." And so did the Negro. The census of 1860 shows that the South had 247,817' free negroes and the North in all her domain had only 268.817--a difference of 21,000. Where were all the negroes of the North, during almost two full centuries of slavery? They were not eliminated by the rigors of the climate. For then their fate would have been the theme of poets, philosophers and philan thropists. They were not liberated and endowed, and then transported to Hayti or some other delightful climate. For then the press of the North and the world would have abounded with the praise of Northern slave-holders as true liberators in deed. But where were all those multiplied negroes? Shall we conclude they were on Southern plantations in exchange for Southern gold? This will destroy the beautiful picture drawn by Mr. Thorpe, and make the North as culpable for the wrong of slavery as was the South. Not only that, it will add another wrong of the North,--the waging of a war of coercion against the South for a sin equally common to both sections. Is ship ping a negro to the South and selling him to a slaveholder, and then pocketing the money and returning to the North, freeing that negro? Mr. Thorpe might have spoken more accurately if he had said, "Gradually a conviction grew at the North that slavery was not a paying institution, and gradually the Northern slaves we^e exchanged for Southern gold." There were 3,950,531 slaves in the South during the war. Their young masters, and older masters up to sixty years of age. were ^it^r^t exclrsivftlv ;n the service. They confidently committed t^eir wives and daughters to the keeping of these blacks. With 44 EICHAEDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH what result? The world knows the Southern heroes did not misplace their confidence. Was ever slavery like this? May it not have been slavery merely in name? Was it not a mere family institution with the binding ties of the tender relationship of the family? It is certain the world has never witnessed such fidelity among other people under similar circumstances. All accusations of cruelty on the part of the Southern whites, to be effective, must first overcome this glorious fidelity of the negro. It was this fidelity that made Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation a failure. But for this fidelity that proclama tion would have been most barbarous--perhaps the greatest dis grace in the history of war. Think of it, if these nearly four millions of negroes had been encouraged by that proclamation to murder the women and children of the South how fearful would have been the disgrace visited upon the North. Southern heroes of the late war have in their hearts a warm place for the old ex-slaves. They will transmit their love and admiration for these old darkies to their children and children's children. So long as Southern chivalry shall live it will honor the fidelity of the Southern slaves. Southern men and South ern women should erect in some important center in memory of the fidelity of their slaves a monument of marble with a base as broad as the broadest, and a column as tall as the tallest, and write Fidelity on its four sides. On the 26th day of September, 1861, the people of the North in accordance with a proclamation of the President of the United' States met to observe a day of "public prayer, humiliation and fasting." We are told by the writer of the "Civil War Fifty Years Ago To-Day" that "nearly every minister chose a dif ferent text bearing on slavery or on the war. All who did so denounced slavery as bitterly as it had never before been de nounced by the Abolitionists of New England a decade before. Taken together these utterances showed how earnestly the North ern people, as a whole, believed that the war was being fought tor the freeing of slaves, and for that alone--a. view that had not been held by the whole people of the North when the war began. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 45 "Never before had all ministers and teachers of religion, of all denominations"--in the words of Lincoln's proclamation*-- been called upon to express their views on a given day; never before had such a concerted expression of opinion gone up from them. "Had some of the members of Congress who had voted for this fast day, been able to foresee these deep combined utter ances on a subject that the most adroit politicians of the North had sought to keep in the background in the open months of the war, there is little question that they would not have asked the President to give the ministers of the North an opportunity col lectively to express themselves on the great issue of the day." (italics ours). Lincoln had proclaimed that the war was not waged to free the negro. This was done to save the border states to the Union. Often during the war did the Southern soldiers hear from the lips of prisoners from the border States, "If we thought we were fighting to free the negro we would not fire another gun." This proclamation of Lincoln was the result of the de feat of Bull Run, and "a unanimous vote of Congress asking Lincoln to appoint a national fast day." The ministers of the Gospel, unlike "adroit politicians." had no better sense than to openly and boldly declare the issue as the North regarded it, viz: that the war was waged to free the negro. This fact renders the Southern negro's fidelity to his sacred trust the more praiseworthy; and declares most emphatically how little the North knew of the true nature of Southern slavery. Since the war reliable testimony has been received from the lips of the old negroes that Northern spies were often, during the 60's in their midst, attempting to influence their minds against their masters in the field of war, but to no avail. The South had led in forbiding the slave trade. Hence slavery was cut off from all increase except that of birth. On the other hand thousands of foreigners were flocking to this country and settling in the North and West. Already at this time the North outnumbered the South in population by nearly 4,000,000 inhabitants. The natural increase of the Northern 46 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH population added to that of the thousands of foreigners annually flocking to this country proclaimed the doom of slavery. In 1850 the State of California was admitted with a Constitution forbiding slavery. Mr. Thorpe says, "It was not forbidden because the Californians pitied or loved the negro, or because they wished to attack slavery in the South, or to interfere with slavery in anyway; slavery was forbidden because the men who lived there and who were laboring in the mines, or elsewhere, refused to put themselves in competition with slave labor." Thus every interest in the North and West antagonized slav ery. In spite of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court de cisions, slavery was being confined to limits of the then slaveholding states. If the South had been left undisturbed to de cide for herself, her sober thought would have solved the ques tion of slavery within her borders by some wise and gradual porcess that would have been bloodless, and yet most ef fective. In seceding did not the South, by her own act, limit the borders of slavery? Would she have been less wise if fi nally left unmolested by threats and murders and insurrections? The first step to abolish slavery under the present Constitu tion was made as early as the 12th of February, 1790, some what less than twelve months after the inauguration of Wash ington. It was in the form of a petition to Congress, headed by the eminent and venerable Dr. Franklin. Its object was the ultimate abolition of slavery in the States. To this petition the House of Representatives replied by resolution as follows: "That Congress has no authority to interfere with the eman cipation of slaves, or with the treatment of them within any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to pro vide any regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may require." This was the first Congress under the present Constitution. All its members were well informed as to its true meaning, some of them having taken an active part in framing it This exposition of the Constitution by this enlightened Congress must have been the true one. It declared the utter want of Con gressional jurisdiction on the subject. There was at this time RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 47 no geographical line between the slave States and the free. In fact only one state, Massachusetts, up to this time excluded slav ery. Hence this decision of Congress was not sectional. The South took the lead in the prohibition of the slave trade. It was chartered by Queen Elizabeth and encouraged by her successors to the Crown, against the protest of the Southern Colonies. It continued to exist down to the American Revo lution. Virginia was the first of all the Colonies to raise her voice in protest. She protested no less than twenty-three times. Thomas Jefferson called it "this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers." On the 2nd of June, 1770, the House of Burgesses and a number of merchants in the capi tal of Virginia, met and resolved that they would not "pur chase any slave or slaves that may be imported by others after the 1st day of November next, unless the same have been twelve months on the Continent." On the 1st of April. 1772, Virginia pronounced the slave trade "a calamity of a most alarming nature,........ "a trade of great inhumanity." On the 5th of October, 1778, Virginia forbade the further im portation of slaves "under a penalty of 1,000 pounds from the seller and 500 pounds from the buyer and freedom to the slave." This was "the first example of an attempt by a legislative en actment to destroy the slave trade." Georgia was the first state in the American Union to incorporate its prohibition in her organic law. The South did all this and more in spite of the fact that the law and climate and agricultural pursuits en couraged the continuance of the traffic. The North took the lead in sustaining the slave trade, it being carried on almost exclusively by New England merchants and Northern ships--this too in spite of the fact that the law and climate together with naval and manufacturing interests tended to exclude slavery from their borders--in spite of the fact that an unparalleled cruelty to the negroes existed in their transporta tion. The first introduction of slavery into sectional controversy was on the occasion of the admission of Missouri as a State into the Union in 1819-20. It was the result of the proviso 48 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH prohibiting slavery within its limits. The debate was violent. It was vehement. Representatives from the North threatened the disruption of the Union. It was continued into the next ses sion. The South pleaded in vain that the number of slaves would not and could not be increased by their removal into this State; in vain her representation showed most conclusively that it was unconstitutional to exclude them. It is true the Dred Scott decision had not yet been rendered, but the plain terms of the Constitution spoke with no uncertainty of meaning. The equality of the States and the equal rights of the States were then admitted by all. These facts were eloquent in defence of the right to admit slaves into the State. But in addition no language of the Constitution, however, strong could exceed in force tlmt of the silence of that instrument on the subject, since Congress could do nothing not expressly granted. At this time there were twenty-two states in the Union, eleven Northern and eleven Southern. The States were, therefore equal ly represented in the Senate. No member from the South in either house voted for the restricting proviso. On the adoption of the Compromise the vote in the Senate stood 34 yeas to 10 nays--the nays consisting of two from the North and eight from the South. In the House the vote was 143 yeas to 42 nays, 39 Southern members voting yea and 5 Northern members vot ing nay. Every Southern man voting yea on this question did it through policy in a spirit of patriotism with the hope of quiet ing the slavery question as to the territories and saving the Un ion. Every Southern man voting against the Compromise did so because he deemed it unconstitutional. These were right in principle and in policy. Policy is never justified in abandoning principle. Had the friends of the Constitution in that Con gress at that time denounced policy and clung to the Consti tution doubtless the great war of the Sixties would have been averted. Who made a sacrifice for the sake of the Union in this Com promise? It was the South. Who made sacrifices all the time for the sake of the Union? The answer is ever the same. It was the South. Who erred in making all these sacrifices? /* RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 49 was the South. Every sacrifice she made invited new aggres sions. Every new aggression gained confidence from previous success till the North demanded all the rights of the South un der the Constitution; and when now the South finally refused to make further concession the North, in self-confidence, because of her growth, her strength and advantage of position deter mined to enforce her demands and compel the Sotrth's submis sion. When the States were eleven to eleven the South could have demanded all her rights under the Constitution and could have secured them without peril. The Government was then in the hands of an administration that knew the Con stitution and was true to its dictates. The advantages were all with the South. Had there been secession it would have been the North that seceded, and the South would have been left in possession of the Government. Nor would she have coerced the North even had her population exceeded that of the North by many millions? As already intimated the South made her great mistake in 1819-20, when she compromised her rights, and in doing so compromised the Constitution. Her safety lay in the strict enforcement of the Constitution. In yielding her rights under the Constitution for the sake of the saving the Union she opened the floodgate for her own ruin. That mistake cost her the flower of her chivalry, and billions of her property to say nothing of the privations and sufferings and sorrows it brought to her people at home and in the field. It was just prior to this unfortunate compromise that slavery was injected into politics. It was the act of the North. Its insidious entrance was on the plea that the South had no right to carry slaves into the territories, the common property of all the States. To sustain this position its advocates were forced to deny that slaery was property. The slave trade had enriched the North, and yet slavery was not property! The North had exchanged the slaves for Southern gold and yet slavery was not property! This denial of the right of the South was the denial of the equality of the States in the Union. But what cared the political ben eficiaries of the North for that? Here was one of the first 50 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH mutterings of the coming war storms that burst upon this coun try with such terrific fury in the dark Sixties. If slavery was not property the North was deceived for more than a century and a half. But the North was not deceived. If any people know what property is, it is the North. AH the North accept Hamilton as high authority. Hear him: "The Federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great pro priety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and property. This is in fact, their char acter bestowed upon them by the laws under which we live." you will not only judge for yourselves, not only discard the practice of the Government, but you drive us out simply because you will do it. Your party says you will not take the decision of the Supreme Court You said so at Chicago; you said so in committee; every man of you in both Houses say so. What are you going to do ? You say we shall submit to your construction. We shall do it if you can make us; but not otherwise, or in any other manner. That's settled." "Your party says you will not take the decision of the Su preme Court. You said so at Chicago; you said so in committee, every man of you (of the new party) in both Houses say so," are as many indisputable historical facts. Who then are the conspirators? Mr. Toombs: "You have no warrant in the Constitution for this declaration of outlawry. The court says you have no right to make it. The treaty says you shall not do it The treaty of 1803 declares that the property of the people shall be protected by the Government until they are admitted into the Union as a State. That treaty covers Kansas and Nebraska. The law passed in 1804, or 1805, under Jefferson, protects property in 164 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH slaves in that very territory. In 1820, when the question of pro hibition came up, Mr. Madison declared is was warranted by the Constitution, and Jefferson denounced its abetters as enemies of the human race. Here is the court; here are our fathers; here is contemporaneous exposition for fifty years, all asserting our right. The Republican party says, "We care not for your pre cedents, or practices; we have progressive politics as well as pro gressive religion. " Who are the conspirators ? "But no matter what may be our grievances, the honorable gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Crittenden) says we cannot secede. Well, what can we do? We cannot revolutionize; he will say that is treason. What can we do? Submit? They say they are the strongest, and they will hang us. Very well, I suppose we are to be thankful for that boon. We will take that risk. We will stand by the right; we will take the Constitution; we will defend it by the sword with the halter around our necks. Will that satisfy the Honorable Senator from Kentucky? You cannot intimidate my constituents by talking to them about treason. They are ready to fight for the right with the rope around their necks!" What have we here but strange fact that the very men who are violating the Constitution are charging treason to those who are upholding it! If there is a well established fact in history it is that Lincoln and the Republican party in the Sixties violated the Constitution. Mr. Toombs: "But, although I insist upon this perfect equal ity in the Territories, yet, when it was proposed, as I understand the Senator from Kentucky now proposes, that the line of 36 degrees, thirty minutes shall be extended, acknowledging and protecting our property on the South side of that line, for the sake of peace--permanent peace--I said to the Committee of Thirteen, and I say here, that with other satisfactory provisions, I would accept it." Who can read the facts of that perilous hour in the history of our country and not realize that the Constitution was vio lated--persistently violated--and that its violators were or ganized and determined to sustain its violation; and, moreover, RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 165 that they charged the true friends of the Constitution \vih con spiracy? Mr. Toombs: "Yet not only did your committee refuse that, but my distinguished friend from Mississippi (Mr. Davis)--an other modest gentleman like myself--proposed simply to get recognition that we had the right -to our own; that man could have property in man; and it met with the unanimous refusal even of the most moderate, union-saving, compromising portion of the Republican party. They do not intend to acknowledge it." If slavery was wrong it was a wrong engrafted in the Consti tution,--yea, in both Constitutions and in every Colonial Char ter. It was therefore, a wrong protected by the Constitution; and should have been treated as such. Before entering on the execu tion of his office as President, Mr. Lincoln took the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." In taking that oath he swore "to preserve, defend, and protect" the institution of slavery. Instead he denounced it as a wrong, and most bit terly opposed it. He also swore to construe the Constitution as determined by the judges of the Supreme Court. But instead he derided that court's decision, organized opposition to it, and boldly combatted it. He thus inaugurated a war called "the mightiest struggle in the history of the world--a struggle in which over 3,700,000 soldiers were engaged; which cost the North alone eight billion dollars ($8,000,000,000) ; and which cost the South untold wealth; and in patriot lives on both sides approaching a million--about one patriot life to every four negroes When we speak of the wrong of slavery, let it not be con sidered apart from the infinitely greater wrong that cost so much in treasure and in blood. Is the negro worth the price paid for his freedom? Mr. Toombs: "Very well, you not only want to break down our Constitutional rights; you not only upturn our social system; your people not only steal our slaves, and make them freemen to vote against us, but you seek to bring an inferior race in a con- 166 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH dition of equality, socially and politically, with our own people. Well, sir, the question of slavery moves not the people of Georgia one-half as the fact that you insult their rights as a community. You abolitionists are right when you say there are thousands and tens of thousands of men in Georgia, who do not own slaves. A very large portion of the people of Georgia own none of them. In the mountains, there are comparatively but few of them; but no part of our people are more loyal to their race and country than our bold and brave mountain population: and every flash of the electric wire bringe me cheering news from our mountain tops, and our valleys, that these sons of Georgia are excelled by none of their countrymen in loyalty to the rights, the honor and the glory of the commonwealth. They say, this is our question; we want no negro equality, no negro citizenship; we want no mongrel race to degrade our own; and, as one man, they would meet you upon the border with sword in one hand, and the torch in the other. We will tell you when we choose to abolish this thing. It must be done under our direction, and according to our will; our own, our native land, shall determine this question, and not the abolitionists of the North. That is the spirit of our freemen." Truly did Mr. Toombs exclaim: "Sir, the question of slavery moves not the people of Georgia one-half as the fact that you insult their rights as a community." Not only did the aggres sions of the North involve and threaten the Constitutional rights of the South, but also threatened ruin to her entire social sys tem. Was not this great cause for alarm? Did it not justify the strongest possible opposition on the part of the South? If the Supreme Court is authority the South had the right on her side. Then, by what principle of right could the North charge the South with conspiracy, rebellion and treason? On the con trary will not the impartial future historian lay the charge of conspiracy, and treason at the door of the violators of the Con stitution, the one standard of right ratified by the two sections? Mr. Toombs also intimates that the South, if let alone, would have abolished the institution of slavery when he said "It must be done under our direction, and according to our will; our own. BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 167 our native land, shall determine this question." Again we are reminded of the vicious encroachment of the North, and of their hypocritical cry of "treason," in their unconstitutional ag gressions upon the rights of the South. Is this language too strong? If so, our plea is, it is the language of facts, not ours. Alexander H. Stephens in his great work, The War Between the States" refers to Mr. Toombs's eloquent reference to the patriotism of the non-slaveholders in Georgia, and sustains him in these words: "They were as truly 'loyal1 to the Constitution, as it stood in this particular, as any class in the commonwealth, and were as ready to defend the principles of that Constitution, by defending the Sovereign Rights of the States, 'even with the rope around their necks,' as their slaveholding neighbors. In deed I think he (Toombs) might have gone further, with truth, that they were even readier; for, in this State I believe a ma jority of the slaveholders were against the policy of secession at the time. They were generally what were called conservatives, and a large portion of them, if not a majority of them, voted the Bell Everett ticket in the Presidential election. My opinion is, that a majority of them, in this State, voted against secession delegates to the Convention which was called in this State." (Vol. 2, pp. 127-8). Can it be doubted that the supposed weakness of the South invited the assaults of the Republican party upon her Constitu tional rights? There was a time in the history of our country when New England, for reasons satisfactory to herself, threat ened to secede from the Union. The two sections were then equally divided as to States, and nearly so as to population, and a Southerner was at the helm of the Government. Secession then was declared by the North to be Constitutional and right. It was further declared that it could be accomplished without the shedding of blood. But in the Sixties the North had the greater number of States and far excelled the South in popula tion and the essentials of war. Besides, they were in possession of the Government, and believed the non-slaveholding population of the South were their natural allies. This great advantage 168 KICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH reversed their opinion as to the Constitutional right of secession and inaugurated the great war. Mr. Stephens further remarks upon this particular portion of Mr. Toombs's speech, as follows: "But mark you, when and where was this speech made? It was made on the 7th of Jan uary, 1861, in the Senate of the United States, two days after you say the conspirators aiming at the overthrow of the Govern ment had organized in secret junto at Washington f Is anything wanting more thoroughly to refute that idea than this speech ? It clearly shows that on the 7th of January, 1861, after South Caro lina had seceded, as we have seen--after the conspiracy had entered into a regular organization, with a usurpation of all power over Southern public affairs, according to this fabulous account of it, that Mr. Toombs, and even Mr. Davis, who was the selected chief, were willing to settle the whole controversy, if any assurance would be given by the leading men of the party coming into power on the 4th of the ensuing March, that clearly stipulated guarantees of the Constitution would be carried out fn good faith by them? This assurance, it is well known, was not given. It was refused to be given. This is a correct version of that matter. The whole story of any such conspiracy, and the election of Mr. Davis as President of a new dynasty, is altogether fabulous. "After this refusal, if the Senators--the Ambassadors of the Southern States at Washington--did assemble together in that city, and did jointly resolve upon such action as they thought best for the people of their States, respectively, to adopt in their State Conventions, then called by the regular constituted au thorities, in this emergency; and if, after this meeting and conS'.i]tat;on, Mr. Toombs, one of them, did go into the Senate, ?nrl there deliver this manifesto, and make another appeal for the Union, after the advice was given, who can justly maintain that they, in the performance of this high duty, were a set of secret conspirators or anything like it? It is notorious that they did so meet, so consult, and so advise. But their meeting was no secret. Nothing was more generally known in Washington. It was announced in the newspapers of the day. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 169 - ... "The object of their assembling was to advise such course as they thought best for the people of the Southern States, .in which conventions were then called, to pursue in the crisis then impending, if no assurance should be given that the Consti tution would be maintained. There was no such thing as the -election of a Chief Commander of a military force, or any usur pation of power whatever. The Sovereign people of these States were left to their own free will to adopt the policy they advised, or reject it as they pleased. The sum and substance of the ad vice was embodied in this speech of Toombs. The''r wrongs de manded redress, and if it were not granted that they should 'depart in peace,' and form a new Constitution amongst them selves. The redress was not given, and these States did depart in peace. They also passed ordinances of secession as South Carolina had done, and in convention at Montgomery formed a new Confederation." Here we have the high authority of Alexander H. Stephens that both Mr. Toombs and Mr. Davis "were willing to settle the whole controversy if any assurance would be given by the leading men of the party coming into power on the ensuing 4th of March that the clearly stipulated guarantees of the Constitution would be carried out in good faith by them." This was refused. What was refused? Nothing less than "the clearlv stipulated guaran tees of the Constitution " Think of it! The South was denied her Constitutional guarantees! When she complained, as she had a right to do, she was charged with conspiracy, rebellion and treason. Was it rebellion to claim her constitutional guarantees? On the other hand who can deny that it was treason to refuse the South her constitutional rights ? Was not this denial perjury ? --that is in violation of the oaths of every State in the Union, and of everj' Federal State officer? Had not the South great cause for alarm? Could she put implicit confidence in a party untrue to their oaths? Had not her representatives in Washing ton a right to assemble and consider as to the best policy to be pursued in this emergency? Yea, was it not their duty to do so? When they exercised this right as freemen, after having published to the world that the emergency, created by the 170 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH enemies of the Constitution required them to meet, were they justly termed conspirators and guilty of other crimes? Could the South believe that one violation--a confessed violation jf the Constitution--would not be followed by another, and yet an other, till she was robbed of all her Constitutional guarantees? Yea, was not this usurpation followed in reality by others till men in this free Republic were arrested without warrant or law on the mere suspicion of opposing the policy of the party in power? Did not Mr. Seward finally boast that he could touch a button on his table and order the arrest of any man he should designate, and throw him into prison without the right of trial? In a future chapter we shall establish this fact and others equally as astounding. PAUSE HERE AND REFLECT. We have quoted freely from two speeches--the first by Abra ham Lincoln of Illinois ,the other by Robert Toombs of Georgia. Every thread of that of Toombs's is spun from the pure lint o the Constitution. This is not the mere utterance of a Confederate veteran. It is but the voice of facts. It is a most eloquent plea for the Union of the Constitution intact. Not a thread of the oration of Mr. Lincoln is taken from the Constitution. It also claims to be a plea for the Union, but not the Union of the Con stitution inviolate. That the reader may be the better prepared to compare the Constitutional merits of these two speeches we shall now pro ceed to set, side by side, some of the leading sentiments of each. Mr. Lincoln. "But you will break up the Union rather thansubmit to a denial of your Constitutional rights." Mr. Toombs: "Senators, my countrymen, have demanded nonew Constitution--no new Government; they -have demanded not a single thing except that you shall abide by the Constitu tion of the United States." Mr. Lincoln: "When you make these declarations you have a specific and well understood allusion to an assumed Constitu- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 171 tional right of yours to take slaves into the Federal Territory and hold them as property." Mr. Toombs: "The Supreme Court has decided that we have a right to go to the Territories with our property, and be pro tected there." Mr. Lincoln: "But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. Mr. Toombs: "I say the Constitution is the whole compact, AH the obligations, all the claims that fetter the limbs of my people are nominated in the bond, and they wisely exclude any conclusions against them by declaring that powers not delegated! by it to the United States, or forbidden by it to the States, be long to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respecth ely or to the people." (Ap pendix Con., Art. 10). Mr. Lincoln: "But we, on the other hand, deny that any such right has any existence in the Constitution." Mr. Toombs: "The discontented States of this Union have demanded nothing but clear, distinct, unequivocal, well-acknowl edged Constitutional rights--rights affirmed by the highest trib unal of their country. Not only the Federal Courts, but all the local Courts in all the States, decided that this was a Con stitutional provision. Nobody then had invented pretexts toshow that the Constitution did not mean a negro slave." Mr. Lincoln: "Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has settled this disputed Constitutional question in your favor .... The Court has decided the question in a sort of way. The Court has substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territory, and to hold them asproperty." Mr. Toombs: "The Supreme Court has decided in our favor,, and Lincoln says he will not stand by that judgment." Mr. Lincoln: "When I say the decision was made in a sort of a way I mean that it was made in a divided court by a bare majority of the judges." Mr. Toombs: "The decision was rendered in our favor by 172 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH the highest tribunal in the Country by a majority of seven to two." Mr. Lincoln: "The decision was mainly based upon a mis taken fact--the statement that the right of property in a slave is directly and expressly written in the Constitution." Mr. Toombs: "Then you will not accept that arbiter. You will not take the Supreme Court as an arbiter; you will not take the practice of the Government; you will not take the trea ties under Jefferson and Madison; you will not take the opin ions of Madison upon the prohibition in 1820." Mr. Lincoln: "When the obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice is it not reasonable that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the Conclu sion?" Mr. Toombs: "You will take nothing but your own judg ment. You will not only judge for yourselves, not only discard the Court, not only discard our construction, not only discard the practice of the Government, but you drive us out because you will it." Mr. Lincoln: "Do you really feel yourselves justified to break up the Government unless such a Court's decision as vours is to be; at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of action?" Mr. Toombs: "You have no warrant in the Constitution for this declaration of outlawry. The Court says you have no right to make it. The treaty says you shall not do it. The treaty of 1803 declares that the property of the people shall be protected by the Government until they are admitted into the Union as a State. Here is the Court; here are our fathers; here is con temporaneous exposition for fifty years, all asserting our right." Mr. Lincoln: "It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another." Mr. Toombs: "We will stand by the right, we will take the Constitution; we will defend it by the sword with the halter around our necks. You not only want to break down our Con stitutional rights; you not only upturn our social system, but RICHABDSOlfS DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 173 you seek to bring an inferior race in a condition of equality, socially and politically with our own people. Sir, the question of slavery moves not the people of Georgia one-half as the fact that you insult their rights as a community." Mr. Lincoln: "Will the Southern people be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them?" Mjr. Toombs: "Sir, I have no hesitation in saying a very large portion of the people of Georgia, whom I represent, pre fer to remain in the Union with their Constitutional rights. B a son of the author of the work." KICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 241 Joseph Wilmer, a son of Bishop Wilmer, wrote Prof. Bingham from Rapidan, Va., Feb. 10, 1905: "I have a distinct recol lection of my father's statement that Gen. Lee told him 'Rawle's was the text-book at West Point during his cadet-ship.'" Judge George L. Christian, of Richmond, Va., wrote to Prof. Bingham in December, 1904, "I have frequently heard Gen. D. H. Maury and Fitzhugh Lee state the fact that TJawle on the Constitution' was the legal text-book at West Point, when Gen. Lee, Joseph E. Johnston, and Stonewall Jackson were cadets there, and later on was a text-book when I was there." Gen. Dabney in So. Historical Papers, Vol. 6, p. 249, says: "It (Rawle) remained a text-book at West Point till----; and Mr. Davis and Sidney Johnston and Gen. Joe. Johnston, and Gen. Lee, and all the rest of us, who retired with Virginia from the Federal Union, were not only obeying the plain instincts of our nature and the dictates of duty, but we were obeying the very inculcations we had received at the National School. It is not probable that any of us ever read the Constitution, or any expositions of it, except this work of Rawle, which we studied in our graduating year at West Point. I know I did not." Here is proof absolute that Rawle's View of the Constitution was a text-book at West Point, and that such was the case when Davis and the Lees and the Johnstons, and other distin guished Confederate Generals were cadets there. Is this testi mony worthless? It is certain that the dictum of the Republi can Party was placed above the teachings of history and the plain meaning of the Constitution. The entire South is under lasting obligations to Prof. Bing ham for his most important contribution to the truth of history. It places the vindication of the South beyond the reach of doubt or censure. The South's thanks are also due to Charles Francis Adams, a brave Union soldier, for his testimony of like char acter, in these words: "Story's Commentaries was published in 1833. Prior to its appearance the standard text-book was Rawle's View of the Constitution." We shall close this chapter with only a few other all-impor- 242 RICHARDSONS DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH tant witnesses. Massachusetts, in the very beginning of her Articles of Confederation, set forth the conspicuous declaration that "each State retained its sovereignty and freedom and in dependence." New Hampshire, in revising her Constitution in 1792, used the same words as Massachusetts with the exception of State for Commonwealth. In the Federalist the question was frequently asked during the adoption of the Constitution by the States, "If the princi ples of the Confederation require that in the establishment of the Constitution the States should be regarded as distinct and independent Sovereignties. They are so required by the Con stitution proposed." (Federalist N. 40). CHPTER THE NORTH THE REAL REBELS. It is now evident that we have arrived at a point in this dis cussion which justifies the above caption. The mere fact that the U. S. Government taught her own cadets in her own school, at West Point, the right of secessoin is sufficient evidence with in itself, to establish this right beyond dispute. But especially is this true since the States, in framing the Constitution, re served the right to themselves by not delegating it away in ex press terms. Especially, also, is this true when we consider Lincoln's testimony given in the Congress in 1848, remembering always that the nearer the witness is to the time of inaugu ration of the Constitution, as a general rule, the truer is he to that instrument. Especially, also, is this true when we consider the testimony of the Eleventh Amendment; that of the Declara tion of Independence; that of the early Constitutions of Massa chusetts and New Hampshire, to say nothing 6f the many other corroborating ordinances of the States of New York, Rhode Is land and Virginia, to which we shall refer in the next chap ter, and in which these States expressly based their ratification of the Constitution on the condition that they could withdraw from the Union. But as in all very important transactions between men in their private affairs, a multitude of facts are not out of order, so in this very important question as to the sovereignty of the States and their consequent right of secession, a multitude of facts will not be out of place. Hence from the mountain of telling facts, vindicating the South, we propose to select a few others, which also bear, on their face, truth and verity. In the 4th Edition of the Republic of Republics--Little, Brown & Co.--are these words: "Another event of great historical in terest, in which Judge Clifford participated, was a Solemn Con sultation of a small number of the ablest lawyers of the North in Washington, a few months after the war, upon the momen tous question as to whether the Federal Government should 244 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH commence a criminal prosecution against Jefferson Davis for the participation and the leadership in the war of Secession. In this council, which was surrounded at the time with the utmost secrecy, were Attorney-General Speed, Judge Clifford, Wm. Evarts, and perhaps a half dozen others, who had been selected from the whole Northern profession for their legal ability and acumen, and the result of their deliberation was the sudden aban donment of the idea of a prosecution in view of the insurmount able difficulties in the way of getting a final conviction." We have just referred to Rawle's "View or the Constitution" as a text-book at West Point, an unanswerable argument of the fact in behalf of the Right of Secession, as taught by the Gov ernment itself. We have, now, in this "Solemn Consultation" another view of the Constitution, known by the title of the "Sol emn Consultation's Views." Rawle's view was that of one man, but adopted by the Government. The Solemn Consultation's View was that of an entire 'council, composed of the ablest lawyers in the North--lawyers selected from the whole legal profession of the North for their known ability and acumen. They were aided in this most solemn council by Attorney-Gen eral Speed, whose name is very significant in this connection; for the result of their deliberations was the Speedy abandonment of the idea of a prosecution in view of the insurmountable diffi culties in the way of securing a final conviction. What were these insurmountable difficulties? We are not told, and yet all men know, that it was no less than the Impassable Mountain of the American Constitution. Why was not such a solemn consultation invoked before the war? Echo repeats the question, why Yet brings back no other reply. What a confession have we here? The Government had waged a most gigantic war against the South for the reason that Seces sion was unconstitutional and treasonable. Yet within a few months after the end of that mighty conflict, the most terrible and most destructive known to modern history; yea, before the smoke of battle had cleared away, this same Government had con- BICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 245 fessed that the war had been waged without constitutional au thority. Who were the real rebels? Who were the real patriots? Davis was acquitted when that most Solemn Council had held that most Solemn Consultation, and had made its report to the officials of the Government. But he was not immediately re leased. On the contrary, he was imprisoned in the strongest fort in all North America. He was conducted thither with great pomp and display, his arm being in the firm grasp of a Federal General, who had a legion at his back. He was confined in a cell within a cell, only a few feet above the water line, and so dark as to require a lighted lamp day and night. Two senti nels were placed within that cell and paced to and fro day and night He was proclaimed to the world as a felon, treated as a felon, fed as a felon, and shackeled as a felon. Yet, all this time he had been acquitted by that most Solemn Council in that most Solemn Consultation. Why all this? What does it mean? Was there no deception here? We pause on the very threshold of the answer, for the world had already given an swer. Some future Shakespeare will dramatize this great wrong and deception in immortal verse. Some future Raphael will place it upon canvas in colors that will glow to the end of time. How was such an imposition passed off upon the American public? It was due to Ignorance and Passion. Passion was the power and ignorance of the Constitution was the tool. Men, well informed on other subjects, know little of the Constitu tion from personal study of that instrument. We have, in a previous chapter, shown that even a distinguished Major Gen eral makes this confession for himself and other West Point graduates, viz.: "It is not probable that any of us ever read the Constitution, or any exposition of it except in this of Rawle, which we studied in our graduating class at West Point." If a distinguished military officer, whose calling demanded more or less intimate knowledge of the Constitution, does not read it, what is to be said of the great masses whose occupations do not require it? It is a most serious fact that this general and -wide-spread ignorance of the Constitution is full of peril to our Republic. Wide-range ignorance of the fundamental law of 246 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH any Government, whatever be its nature, is most dangerous in the hands of unscrupulous ambition. But how much greater is the danger in a Republic like ours! Charles Francis Adams, the distinguished citizen and histo rian of Massachusetts, whom we have already introduced to the readers of this volume, says, "When the Federal Constitution was framed and adopted, what was treason; to what or to whom, in case of final issue, did the average citizen owe allegiance? Was it to the Union or to his State? As a practical question seeing things as they then were--sweeping aside all incontro vertible legal arguments and metaphysical disquisitions--I do not think the answer admits of doubt. If put in 1788, or indeed at any time anterior to 1825, the immediate reply of nine men out of ten in the Northern States, and ninety-nine out of a hundred in the Southern States, would have been that as be tween the Union and the States, ultimate allegiance was due to the State." What a confession on which to justify the acts of Lincoln's Administration! How was this stubborn fundamental fact overcome at the North? By false inference, by false constructions, and perver sions of the Constitution. Truly has it been said: "It has not been the experience of mankind that words on parchment can arrest power." Witness the perversion of the Constitution, and false infer ence and false construction in the following: "The Federal Constitution was theoretically and avowedly based on the idea of a divided sovereignty in utter disregard of the fact that sov ereignty does not admit of division." Here is a misstatement of fact in strong language by no less a character than Charles Francis Adams. It is so stated as to be most effective on the minds of all whose prejudices incline in that direction. But the truth is that the Constitution was neither theoretically, nor avowedly based on any such idea as a divided sovereignty. The framers of the Constitution were thoroughly familiar with the nature of sovereignty. They knew that sovereignty could not be divided, and they did not attempt to divide it. If they did not attempt to divide it of course they did not avow it. If they did RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 247 avow it, let Mr. Adams point to the volume and the page con taining the record of that avowal! We know of but one in stance in which an authority has used the term, divided sover eignty, and that was not made by the framers of the- Constitu tion, but by Judge Iredell, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he regarded it as in the sense of the divided powers of sovereignty. He made the two expressions identical. We quote from Judge Iredell's decision in the famous case of Alex ander Chisolm vs. the State of Georgia, as follows: "Every State in the Union, in every instance where its sovereignty has not been delegated to the United States, is considered to be as completely sovereign as the United States are in respect to the powers of the sovereignty surrendered. The United States are sovereign as to all the powers actually surrendered; each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved." While Judge Iredell incautiously uses words in this quota tion which may be briefly summed up to mean delegated or divi ded sovereignty, he at the same time makes clear his meaning by the expressions, "The powers of sovereignty surrendered," "all the powers of sovereignty" actually surrendered, and "all the powers of sovereignty actually reserved," All the defend ers of the Great War are in an emergency. The Constitution is clearly against them. Necessity will catch at all stray words, and all unmeaning phrases, to keep afloat rather than go down in the sea of wrong. It is not to be doubted that there was in the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the Constitution, a party that strongly advocated a consolidated Government wtih paramount author ity over the Sovereign States. By this party a resolution was introduced in the Convention "to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening, in the opinion of the National Legislature, the Articles of the Union, or any treaties under the authority of the Union." With what success did this proposi tion meet? It was voted down by seven States against to three for it. Whereupon Martin Luther, a strong States-rights man, immediately introduced this resolution, the substance of which was incorporated in the Constitution: "That the legislative acts 248 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH of the States made by virtue and in pursuance of the Articles of the Union, and all treaties, made and ratified under the au thority, of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the respective States, as far as those acts or treaties shall relate to the said States, or their citizens and inhabitants; and that the judiciaries of the several States shall be bound thereby in their devisions, and anything the respective laws of the individual States to the contrary notwithstanding." This propostion was unanimously adopted, and its substance inserted in the Constitution. It did not change the character of the Government in the least. It was offered not because neces sary, but out of "abundant caution." When two nations form a treaty the terms of that treaty are the supreme law in both countries without diminishing in the least the sovereignty of each. Yet the centralists, in their dire extremity, quote this clause as making the General Government supreme over the Sovereignty of the States. The very caution of the framers of the Constitution to exclude the idea of a consolidated Republic is made the basis of an effort to prove that it is consolidated. To do this they disassociate the words, "shall be the supreme law of the respective States" from their connection, and treat them without their limitation to legislative acts of the States, made in pursuance of the Constitution and treaties made and ratified in pursuance of the same authority. There was no stronger centralist in the Constitutional Con vention than Alexander Hamilton, but he was as true to truth as he was extreme as a centralist. In Dawson's Edition of the Federalist, No. 31, p. 206, referring to this clause he declares, "It is said the laws of the Union are to be the Supreme law of the land. But what inference is to be drawn from this, or what would they amount to if they were not supreme? It is evident that they would amount to nothing. A law, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy; It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed, are bound to observe. . . "The clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union only declares a truth which flows immediately and nec essarily from the institution of a Federal Government It will RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 249 not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly con fines this supremacy to the laws made pursuant to the Constitu tion, which I mentioned merely as an instance of caution in the Convention, since that limitattion would have been to be un derstood, although it had not been expressed." No man in his day was a more extreme Centralist than Alex ander Hamilton. No man in his day more loyally accepted the fact that the Philadelphia Convention had framed a truly Fed eral Government, composed of independent Sovereignties, than did Alexander Hamilton. He declares in unanswerable conclu sions that this clause was inserted in the Constitution out of abundant caution; that he so stated in the Convention that framed the Constitution; and that it neither added to nor took from the limitation of the powers of the Federal Government. In No. 27 of the Federalist he declares the Government of the Union to be a Federal Government, calls it a Confedracy and speaks of its laws as "the laws of a Confederacy." The Articles of the Confederation had no such clause, and yet Madison shows that "the treaties made by Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, had been declared by Congress and recognized by most of the States, to be the Supreme law of the land." Also Judge Chase of the U. S. Supreme Court, in 1796, rendered a decision (3d Dallas 99), that "Treaties made by Congress according to the Constitution were the supreme laws of the States because the Confederation (not a centralized gov ernment), made them obligatory in all the States. They were so declared by the Legislatures and Executives of most of the States; were so declared by Congress on the 13th of April, 1787; and were so decided by the judiciary of the general Gov ernment and Congress and State Legislatures and State Execu tives, and State judiciaries agree with Hamilton that Martin's resolution was substantially incorporated in the Constitution out of abundant caution--that is, it did not change the meaning of the Constitution in the least. Oh! the straits, to which nec essity is subjected! Oh! the acts of an emergency that con fronts exaltation and honor with shame and dishonor! To such a necessity a shadow is substance! To such an emergency a 250 BICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH mere phrase, out of its connection, is a volume full of unanswer able argument 1 Outside the Constitution there is a vast field well adapted to the exercise of the imagination. In this chapter we have con sidered a product of this faculty, known as "a divided sover eignty" which was not a divided sovereignty. We shall now consider another product of this fruitful faculty. It is known as "a Pious Fraud." Just as there is no such thing as a divided sovereignty so there is no such thing as a pious fraud. This unstable basis to prove that the Federal Government had ab sorbed the sovereignty of the States is also from the gifted pen of Charles Francis Adams. If a better basis could be found, Mr. Adams would find it. He says, "A pious fraud was, in 1788, perpetrated on the average American." Note the word "perpe trated," meaning, according to Webster, "committed as an evil act," and Webster says it is "always used to express an evil act.' Given this definition, is a pious fraud possible? But that is Mr. Adam's premise. If there can be no pious fraud, there can be no pious conclusion based on it. But let us examine Mr. Adams' exposition of this strange production of the imagination . Here it is: "It is impossible to believe that a man so intellectually acute as Mr. Hamilton failed to see the inherent weakness of the plan proposed. He did see it; but under existing conditions it was, from his standpoint, of view, the best attainable." What fact in history corroborates this statement? Examine it: You will find mere assertions only. Nor are they complimentary to the great Hamilton, one among the first citizens of his day, a gentleman highly esteemed among his contemporaries by both friends and foes for his sterl ing honesty. The aid-de-camp of the peerless Washington dur ing the war of the Revolution, he was his first and most efficient Secretary of the Treasury, and constant and trusted friend in private life as well as in public life. Surely such a character was incapable of perpetrating a fraud, and such a fraud! Were Hamilton living he would repudiate the compliment (?) with indignant scorn. We shall refute the charge for him with his own carefully chosen words. BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 251 On the 24th day of June, 1788, the very year in which he is charged with having perpetrated this pious fraud, Mr. Ham ilton, while advocating the adoption of the Constitution, said: "That two supreme powers cannot act together is false. They are inconsistent only when aimed at each other, or at one in dividual object. The laws of the United States are Supreme as to all their Constitutional objects; the laws of the States su preme in the same way. The supreme laws may act without clashing; or they may operate on parts of the common object with perfect harmony. . .The Constitution is framed upon truly Republican principles; and as it is expressly designed for the common and general welfare of the United States, it must be ut terly repugnant to subject the State Governments." These lofty and patriotic sentiments, these profound utteraces lift Hamilton infinitely above the low, degrading, guilty level of perpetrating a fraud. They remind us that Hamilton and Jefferson and Madison and all the leading statesmen, of Hamilton's day, understood tfie nature of the American Consti tution alike. They also teach us that the Constitution, in its adoption was subjected to the severest test--that every word of it was given a searching criticism. This fact alone excludes all idea of fraud. Why do the Nationals ground their argument upon so low, so degrading a basis? Is it because they can find no better? It is far below the Constitutional level. It is a well known fact that Hamilton, in the Convention that framed the Constitution, advocated "a strong central government." Did this fact have anything to do with this charge of fraud? Though all know Hamilton as the leading anti-States-rights delegate in the Convention, how few there are who even know he advocated the adoption of the Constitution! How fewer are they who know that he construed the Constitution with Jefferson and Madison! How fewer still are they who know his sterling worth as a citizen, a patriot and a character! How few, indeed, are they who know that, when, in 1798, an invasion was appre hended from France, and provisional army had been called into the field. Hamilton's public services were again required; and, on the death of Washington in December, 1799, he succeeded 252 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH to the chief command of the American forces! Could such a man, so honored, so trusted, perpetrate a fraud on his country men--even a pious fraud? The very best the Nationalists, or Anti-Constitutionalists can do is to depend upon a mere probability or doubt as a basis of defense for their cause. But the State-Rights Republicans, or Constitutionalists, select their defense from the great abund ance of facts that result from the very nature of the Govern ment. We therefore next introduce the record of the Conven tion itself in its framing of the Constitution. The Hon. Edmond Randolph, of Virginia, introduced the following resolu tion: "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Convention that a National Government ought to be established consisting of a Supreme Executive, Legislative and Judiciary." This was fol lowed by 22 other resolutions--23 in all--as reported by the Committee. In these resolutions the word National Government occurred no less than 26 times. The next day Mr. Elsworth of Connecticut moved to strike out the words, "National Govern ment," and insert in their stead the words "Government of the United States," that is the States United--declaring that "this is the proper title." The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote. The very act of striking out the words, "National Government," and in serting the words, "Government of the United States," in their instead, was a most significant and emphatic declaration by the States assembled in the Convention, that they were not fram ing a National or Consolidated Government, but a Confedercy, as Hamilton called it, composed of Sovereign States, equal in all respects. This Confederacy was established by the highest authority known to the American people. This highest authority was no less than the sovereign people of the several Sovereign States in Convention assembled. Under the American theory of Gov ernment the highest authority known to a Sovereign State is a Convention, duly elected by the people of such a State. Only such a convention represents the full power inherent in the sov- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 253 ereign people. They are, therefore, the only bodies that can truly claim to be the sovereign people assembled. It is such a people assembled in such Conventions that adopt the Constitu tions for Sovereign States. These Constitutions are of neces sity the fundamental laws of the States. They prescribe the limits of legislation. They specify the duties and obligations of Legislatures. It, therefore, follows that all Legislatures are dominated by a supreme law, and are not, and cannot be, sov ereign bodies, Congress is a Legislative body, working under a supreme law, the Constitution of the States United, and, there fore, Congress is not and cannot be a Sovereign Body. Its limitations are fixed, and its duties are prescribed by a Supreme Law established by a Supreme People assembled in the name of the Supreme States in a Convention, called at the option of 13 free and independent Sovereignties. To deliberately violate the Constitution in the name of the "Worng of Slavery," or in any other name, is rebellion against the Constitution, and rebellion against the Constitution is rebel lion against the Government established at Philadelphia in 1787 and 1788. This the Republican Parry did, and finally induced the North to share in their rebellion. The North, therefore, are the real rebels. CHAPTER XIX. A REPLY TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Charles Francis Adams says: "We have all heard of a much quoted remark of Mr. Gladstone to the effect that the Con stitution of the United States was 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' This may or may not be so. I propose neither to af firm nor controvert it, here and now, but however wonderful it may actually have been, it would have been more than won derful, it would have been distinctly miraculous, had it on the instant so wrought with men as at once to transfer the allegi ance and affection of these thirteen distinct Communities from their old traditional governments to one newly improvised. This hardly admits of discussion." This is a remarkable confession. It admits all that the South claims. It is perhaps from the highest historical authority in all New England, "the center of knowledge and light." It is from the honored and capable head of the Massachusetts His torical Society. As we shall see, he is a better and truer his torian than logician. The declaration of this high authority is that "it would have been more than wonderful," yea, that "it would have been a distinct miracle" had the sovereign States of the Union, actually transferred their allegiance and their affection from their respective State Governments to the newly formed Federal Government. This is the main question at is sue between the North and South, viz: The clear cut opinion of the framers of the Constitution and of the people of the States at the time of its adoption, as to the nature and meaning of that instrument. This confession of Mr. Adams is in line with the testimony of all history, viz: That the people of the respective States in the early days of this Republic did not transfer their allegiance and affection from their States to an untried ex periment; and therefore did not exalt the Federal Government above their own State Governments. Upon what ground then RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 255 can it be claimed that the Federal Government absorbed the sovereignty of the States? Also upon what other ground can we determine the question of right and justice between the two great sections of our common country than that of the Consti tution--the Constitution as construed by its framers and its early expounders in the days of its adoption? Impartial his tory will decide that there can be, and that there will be no other basis of determining this all-important question. Justice, like "truth, though crushed to earth, will rise again." From the very nature of things there can be no other basis than that of the Constitution on which to settle the question of right between the two sections. Was not the Constitution the one basis on which the Union was formed? This being true, every obligation of the States is bound up in the Constitution. These obligations are found nowhere else. How then is it possible to determine the questions of right or wrong between the States on any other basis? It cannot be done. There is no evading this conclusion. But the Constitution is with the South. Therefore, Mr. Adams, like all other defenders of the great war, must seek another basis. He approaches it by degrees and with the cun ning of the serpent that beguiled Eve. Witness these next words of his: "The change (made by the Constitution) was political and far-reaching; but it produced no immediate effect on the feelings of the people." As well say that the Union of the crowns of Scotland and England immediately broke up the Scotch clanship.. It did break it up, but the process was con tinued through one hundred and fifty years. The Union be came an organic fact in 1707; but as the events of forty years later showed, the consequences of the Union no Campbell or Cameron foresaw. So with us in 1788, allegiance to the States had only a few years before proved stronger than allegiance to the Crown or to the Confederation, and no one then was foolish enough to suppose that the executive of the Union "would dare to enforce a law against the wishes of a sovereign and in dependent State! the very idea was 'preposterous.'" May his allies forgive him for this admission! 256 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH He had just read these words of Senator Maclay of Pennsyl vania written in his journal on the 22d of March, 1790, "Is it to be expected that a federal law passed directly against the sense of a whole State will ever be executed in that State?" He had also just read these other words, giving as his reference, "Gordy's Political Parties in the U. S., Vol. 1, pp. 203-341:" "That this new Government, this upstart of yesterday, had the power to interpose its edict on unwilling States was a political solecism to which they could in no wise assent." These are facts that stand out on the plain of history like mountains. It is impossible for them to escape the eye of the historian. They must, they will be recognized through all time. May we not now ask what analogy is there between the Union of Scotland and England in 1707, and the Union of the States in 1788? Was not the former the result of royal intrigue and marriage? Did the submissive people have any voice in it at all? On the other hand, was not the Union of the American States the result of the decision of the free, independent, sov ereign people of "sovereign independent States?" (Adams). In the former case the sovereigns were exclusively royal and de spotic; in the latter the sovereigns were exclusively the free and sovereign people of the States. But doubtless Mr. Adams is not greatly concerned about the analogy between the two Unions. It may not appear on the surface, but he places emphasis distinctly on the time required for the Scotch clanship to die. Does he not say in positive terms: "It did break it up; but the process was continuous through one hundred and fifty years?" If true, what signifi cance have these words in this connection? Do they hot clearly signify a search for a base, other than the Constitution, on which to determine the question of right and justice between the two sections? What means this strange claim that just as the Scotch clanship died out in a century and a half so State allegiance died out in less than three-fourths of a century Has he susr tained his assertions as to State-allegiance by a single fact? Do not all know that State allegiance had not been transferred to the Federal Government in 1860 ? Do not all know that the stronger. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 257 the allegiance to the State the stronger is the allegiance to the Federal Government? Do not all know it was the South's strong allegiance to her State Governments with a devotion, judged by her heroism and sacrifices in the Sixties, unparalleled in the his tory of the world? It is the want of allegiance to the States that set aside the Constitution and supplanted it with a mere fiction. Stripped of its verbiage and elegant phrases how does his argu ment appear? Here it is: The Union of Scotland and Eng land broke up the Scotch Clanship in less than a century and a half. Therefore, the Union of the American States broke up the allegiance to these States in less time than three-quarters of a century. Was anything ever more absurd? After quoting Senator Maclay's declaration, "That this new Government, this Upstart of yesterday, had the power to impose its edicts on unwilling States was a political solecism to which; they could, in no wise, assent," the very next words of Mr. Adams are strong endorsement of these utterances. They are these: "I am sure all this was so in 1788. I am very confident it remained so until 1815. I fully believe it was so, though in less degree, until at least 1830. A generation of men born in the Union had then grown up, supplanting the generations born and brought up in the States. Steam and electricity had not yet begun their cementing influence, but time, sentiment, tradition-- more and most of all, the intense feeling excited North and South by our naval successes under the National flag in the War of 1812--had in 1815 in large part done their work. The sense of ultimate allegiance was surely though slowly as insensibly shifting from the particular and gravitating to the general--from the State to the Union. // was not a question of law, or of the intent of the fathers, or of the true construction of a written in strument; for on that vital point the Constitution was silent." Hear! Hear!! Hear!!! We have the admission of Mr. Adams that from 1788 to 1830 the people had not transferred their allegiance and affection from their respective State Governments to the Federal Government. This is followed by the very strange declaration that during a 253 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH new generation they did, in some way, so transfer their allegi ance and affection. Ht>w? "Through slowly and insensibly shift ing from the particular and gravitating to the general--from the State to the Union." In a Republic like ours can the nature of the Government be changed without legal process? This is peculiarly a Government of law. It was founded on law. It was organized by law. All its functions are defined by law, and all its acts are based on law. It is the proud boast of this great American Republic that it does nothing without the author ity of law. Yet we are told of a mysterious "insensibly shifting" and "gravitating" change that "did its work." The sympathy of the future generations will not be for the leaders who inau gurated the great War in 1861, but for their descendants who will meet with "so many insurmountable difficulties" in defend ing the acts of their ancestors. Mr. Adams has at last revealed to us that wonderfully strange base, that, in his estimation, supplanted the Constitution. He has circled around it like an eagle in search of its prey. Here it is: "A generation born in the Union had then grown up supplanting the generation born and brought up in the States, (also in the Union). Steam and electricity had not yet begun their cementing influence; but time, sentiment and tradition-- more and most of all, the intense feeling excited in the North and South by our naval successes under the national flag in the War of 1812--had in 1815, in large part, done their work." The New Basis, then, is a New Generation. It has been approached by entangling complications, by facts inapplicable, by facts false, and finally by assertions unsustained. If such logic be admissable, the best and purest Government of earth can be condemned. Yea, it will undermine the very ethics of Holy Writ. What well-established government has not had its new generations! What thousands of new generations have not come and gone since the days of Moses! Besides, is it to be supposed that the Constitution was made for just one generation? Was it not made for the generations yet unborn as well as for the generation of 1788? Again, was not the Constitution made so flexible that it could be adapted to RICHAEDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 259 the conditions of any future generation? Does it not prescribe the method by which it can be adapted to the conditions of any age, even though it be a "steam" or an "electric" age? That method is not by the fiction of a magical New Generation, but by the formal consent of three-fourths of the States--a definite and sure method, not a most indefinite method, shrouded in un certainty and revolution. Still again, this New Generation basis is lawlessness and an archy, as testified by these words of Mr. Adams: "It was not a question of law, or of the intent of the fathers, or the true con struction of a written instrument." Does not this exclude all appeal to law? Does it not deny all appeal to justice by ex cluding the intent of the framers of the Constitution? Does it not forbid all legal tribunals by excluding "the true construc tion of the written Constitution?" This is not only anarchy, but also autocratic and despotic. While denying it was a question of law, he yet ostensibly ap peals to law in these words: "For on that vital point, the Con stitution was silent--wisely, and as I hold it, intentionally si lent." Does not Mr. Adams know that these words constitute a dagger in his own hand that cuts the warp and woof of his argument ? The silence of the Constitution is language of deep est import and clearest meaning. To prove this we have but to quote the Constitution, thus: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the State respectively or to the peo ple." By far the greater part of the Constitution is its silence. That greater part belongs to the States, and declares their reserved rights. Herein consists its peculiarity. The conditions which called it into being demanded a peculiar Constitution--one like no other. What a State Constitution does not forbid by its si lence, the Legislature, in its discretion, can do. What the Con stitution of the United States does not forbid by its silence Con gress cannot do. All the powers of the United States are enumerated and specified by the Constitution. It is a Govern ment walled in by specifications and limitations. It is the agent L 2fiO RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH of its creators, the States, with definite instruction, within which it has liberty, beyond which it has no liberty. "On that vital point," declares Mr. Adams, "the Constitu tion was silent." Therefore, the United States had nothing to do with that vital point. It belonged to the States. What then was that vital point? Why, simply this: "Whether it was 'a question of law"--"a true construction of the Constitution," or some fictitious substitute for this written instrument. That the Constitution was silent on such a question as this is not to be wondered at. Can it be possible that the States met in convention, framed and signed the Compact among themselves, and yet did not regard that compact as a law to themselves? Did^not the States, ratifying it, agree to abide by it? If they agreed to abide by it, was it not to them "a question of law?" And if by law, was it not by the "true construction of a writ ten instrument ?" And if by a true construction of the Compact, could they exclude "the'intent of its framers?" What absurdi ties does not a defenseless position breed? Let us consider for a moment what would be the result if the true construction of the Constitution should be rejected. Every officer in the United States Government is sworn to abide by the Constitution, from the President down to the lowest. Every State officer from the Governor down to the lowest is sworn to abide by the same written instrument. If the true con struction can be set aside and a false construction substituted, tell us what will be the result? The true construction can be but one, but false constructions may be as many as the stars that adorn the blue vault of heaven. The true construction means union and consistency, false constructions, disunion and anarchy. Who were the true disunionists and anarchists in the Sixties ? We quote further from Mr. Adams: "I have already refer red to the academic address I, some months ago, had occasion to deliver. In response to it I received quite a number of let ters, one of which, bearing on this point, seemed very notable. It was from the president of an historic Virginia College, who himself bears an historic name. In the address alluded to, I had RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 261 said, 'However it may have been in 1788, in 1860 a nation had grown into existence.' This I take to be indisputable. In no way denying the fact, my correspondent, quoting the words I have given, thus wrote: 'But is it not true that this nationality was after all a Northern Nationality? Did the South share in it to any extent? On the contrary, the Confederate charac ter of the Union was more strongly impressed upon the South in 1860, than in 1788. So that it may be more truly said that the Secessionist's recourse in 1861 was to a peaceable separa tion, and not to the sword. If the Union, and its national char acter reached out after the South, must not the responsibility for the use of the sword be visited upon the North and not upon the South? Both the North and the South started out from the same Constitutional standpoint of secession; but, while the South adhered to the same idea, the North fused into a Na tion, which, in 1861, determined to conquer the other and con servative part. That the South had ever suffered nationality in spirit or in fact, previous to 1861. I think your address dearly disproves." It is thus seen that Mr. Adams asserts "as an indisputable fact" that "in 1860 a nation had grown into existence," and that the Virginia College President did not deny it. We think he did deny it by implication, if not in express terms. If the Vir ginian did not dispute the proposition, we do, and demand the proof that a nation had grown into existence in 1860. If true, it had its beginning in 1860, for nothing can exist before it begins to exist. But, in fact, a Government, known as the United States, was in existence at that time and in full opera tion. Were there two Governments in this country at that time ? By what name was this new nation called? What were its limits as to territory? What was its nature? Did it usurp the Govern ment of the United States? If so, when and how? Was such a Government actually known at all in 1860? Had any one ever dreamed of such a Government? If not we have here the strangest phenomenon of all the strange phenomena in all the ages, viz: A nation in existence and inaugurating the greatest War of Modern Times, and fighting it to a finish, and yet un- 262 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH known, unheard of, undreamed of! When, then, did this nation exist? Surely not before it was heard of. Not till the mighty war with all its carnage had ended, and not then till the insur mountable task of satisfactorily explaining its cause and justify ing its terrible destruction of human life rose stupendously on the vision of its originators. How then did it exist ? In reality ? . No; simply in the brain--in the imagination! There never was such a nation, except as a mere fiction; and this fiction would not have been could a better reason of defense have been found. The future historian will sweep away these cobwebs of a day and substitute in their stead the fact of the South's unyielding devotion to the Constitution. He will wreath her brow with the emblems of immortal glory. He will proclaim hers the land of patriotic heroes, the truest, the bravest, the best; and her hero ines the most devoted, the most self-sacrificing, the purest, the loveliest, the sweetest--worthy of the best soldiers that ever rushed to the onset amid the thunders of the battle. A monument was erected in 1788 to the Southern heroes and heroines of the sixties. That monument is the American Consti tution. We do not refer to the parchment on which it is written? but to its immortal principles of human liberty and human rights. To the true Southerner its summit kisses the blue vault of heaven, and its broad base reaches North and South from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, and East and West touches both oceans. So long as the principles of the American Constitution shall be revered the valor and patriotism of the South will live in the affections of mankind. What is Mr. Adams' reply to the solid reasoning of the Vir ginian ? He begins: "In some of the conclusions in this extract from the letter of my Virginian correspondent it is needless to say I do not agree. I do not believe in the right of secession as an original standpoint from which, in 1788, the North and South started out." Yet we have already quoted Mr. Adams as saying, in regard to whether allegiance is due to the State or the Union, "I do not think the answer admits of doubt. If put m 1788, or indeed at any time anterior to 1825, the immediate reply of nine men out of ten in the Northern States, and ninety- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 263 nine out of a hundred in the Southern States, would have been as between the Union and the States, ultimate allegiance is due to the State." "If that does not mean the right of secession was the original standpoint what does it mean? Have we not also shown that he quoted Senator Maclay, of Pennsylvania, as saying on the 22d of March, 1790, "Is it to be expected that a Federal law passed directly against the sense of a whole State will ever be executed in that State?" Have we, not also shown that Mr. Adams quotes Gordy as saving, "That this new Gov ernment, this upstart of yesterday, had the power to impose its edicts on unwilling States was a political solecism to which they could in no wise assent?" If these quotations do not teach "the right of secession as an original standpoint from which, in 1788, the North and South started out," what do they teach? Is it possible that the States believed they could not withdraw from a Government, which, in comparison with their own, was "a mere upstart of a day?" Another expression of Mr. Adams in reply is this: "I do not believe a peaceable secession as a possibility was ever contem plated by any one." Surely, he must have read of the Hartford Convention in which every voice proclaimed a peaceable seces sion possible. It met in 1814, and such is its fame that it is on every school boy's lip. Did he ever read "The Life of Cabot" in which Col. Pickering, advocating the secession of the New England States, is reported as saying: "That this (a separation) can be accomplished without shedding one drop of blood I have little doubt." (p. 338). When Mr. Pickering uttered these words the two sections were about equal in population. We therefore assert upon the authority of Pickering and history that a peaceable secession was possible when the two sections were equal in population and ma terial wealth. We also assert that such a secession was possible at any period anterior to the time the population of the South exceeded that of the North. We also declare that such a seces sion was possible at any time subsequent when the population of the North did not exceed that of the South to any very great extent. We also assert, as an indisputable proposition, that the se- 264 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH cession of the eleven Southern States would have been a peace able withdrawal from the Union in 1860-61, had not the North far outnumbered the South in population, in war materials and other advantages, including that of being in possession of the Government His third reply is the unsustained and unsustainable assertion "that the essential principle of the Constitution was a divided sovereignty, to which we have called attention in the previous chapter. In that chapter we think we have shown with mathe matical conclusiveness that the Constitution was based on the principle of the divided powers of sovereignty, and not on a divided sovereignty. But suppose a divided sovereignty to be a possibility, what advantage would it give the North in this dis cussion? None, whatever. Mr. Adams admits this in these words: "Though I say, Mr. Lodge and Prof. Smith may be wrong, yet whether they were wrong or right does not affect the proposition that from 1788 to 1861, in case of a direct and insolvable issue between the sovereign States and Sovereign Nation, every man was not only free to decide but had to decide the question of ultimate allegiance for himself; and whichever way he decided, he was right. The Constitution gave him two masters. Both he could not serve; and the average man decid ed which to serve in the light of sentiment, tradition, and en vironment." He, therefore, on this point abandons the Con stitution to gain nothing. Yet this argument is advanced in justification of the War. He next admits the Virginia College President is right "on the main issue," thus: "But on the main issue--the essential point involved in the extract from his letter--the writer was, I think, right. Previous to 1861 the South did not undergo nationaliza tion, to the same extent, in any event, as the North. And yet why did it not?" This question introduces another evasion of the Constitution. The main issue between the North and the South has been ad mitted to be in favor of the latter. The Constitution is there- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 265 fore abandoned and Fate is invoked to come to his rescue. He had previously quoted these lines of Tennyson: "The drift of the Maker is dark, an Isis hid in the veil. Who knows the ways of the world, how God will bring them about ? Our planet is one, the suns are many, the world is wide. We are puppets, Man in his pride and Beauty fair in her flower; Do We move ourselves, or are moved by an unseen hand at a game That pushes us off from the board and others ever succeed." "And why did it not?" is thus answered! Again Tennyson's unseen hand at a game--a game in which we are "puppets." But after all what is that unseen hand? And how did it mani fest itself in our national life during the three-fourths of a cen tury between 1788 and 1861? That "unseen hand," theologi cally known as "an inscrutable providence." I take to be noth ing more nor less than those national, social, industrial and political conditions, domestic and public, which, making our en vironment, mould our destiny with no very great regard for our plans, our hopes, our traditions, or our aspirations." Thus all the wrongs done to an abandoned Constitution, all the wrongs suffered by the South are justified by the irrevocable decrees of Fate, as if Fate, so-called relieved man of all responsibility. We knew Lincoln was a fatalist, but we had not suspected Mr. Adams and other leading spirits as being fatalists of the North. This question is not to be determined by the doctrine of fatal ism. The descendants of the Northern heroes must learn the sad fact that their gallant fathers fought for a cause, defense less in the light of the American Constitution. They must con sole themselves, if at all, with the fact that the country is pros perous in spite of the wrongs to the Constitution and to the great loyal Southern section. We admit the universal proposition: "Known unto God are all things from the beginning." We also admit, "his name is 'I am,' or One Eternal Now. We also admit another proposi tion, equally as indisputable, viz.: "Man is a responsible being." 2(36' RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH The same testimony that proves we live proves with equal cer tainty that we are responsible beings. We know we live be cause we are conscious of the fact, and we have no other evi dence that we do live. We know that we are responsible be ings because we are conscious of the fact. If we deny the tes timony of consciousness in the one case we must deny it in the other. But we cannot deny we live. Therefore, we cannot deny we are responsible beings. "Can we by searching find out God?" We see "his handy work in the heavens." We see his thousands of suns to which Tennyson refers. But who has ever answered the childs' ques tion. "Who made God?" Both Natural and Revealed Religion teach us that he is absolutely infinite in all his attributes. If there is one thing he does not know he lacks that much of being absolutely infinite in knowledge. If there is one thing he can not do he lacks that much of being infinite in power. If there be one thing he does not know or one thing he cannot do, it would result in the wreck of the universe. As the natural eye is turned toward the sky at night we seem to be in the midst of a hemisphere, all bedecked with stars. Why? Because it is the limit of our vision, and that limit is the same in every direc tion. When the astronomer turns his telescope to the heavens he too sees what appears to be a hemisphere, all bedecked with stars, but of vaster proportions. But when God looks out in the same direction there is but one vast stretch of vision, un limited and illimitable. To use a simpler illustration: When man looks along two parallel lines, they seem to come in contact at a certain distance. But when God looks at them they run the same parallel lines all the way. Thus it is when we look at man's responsibility and God's absolute knowledge they seem to come in contact. When God looks at them they run on in grand parallelism forever. We therefore conclude that useless and insignificant are these words of Mr. Adams: "Throughout Fate, the inevitable, 'the unseen hand' are everywhere now apparent," so far, at least, as relieving the North from responsibility as to the clash of arms, the wreck of hopes and the destruction of life and property is concerned. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 267 What has Mr. Adams admitted? Here it is in his own plain words: "The essential point involved in the extract of his let ter"--that of the college president--viz: "The Confederate char acter of the Union, was more strongly impressed upon.the South in 1861 than in 1788;" that is, instead of being "nationalized," so-called, it was more strongly Confederate in character than ever during the existence of the Union--or less nationalized. Granting this to be true, as Mr. Adams has done, it is impossi ble to evade the conclusion of the Virginian, viz.: "If the North was really the only national part of the Union, and its national character reached out after the South, must not the re sponsibility for the use of the sword be visited upon the North and not on the South?" Thus the College President turns the enemy's own gun upon themselves. Were it not that the great name of Webster has been brought into this discussion in support of the false theory of national ization we would rest the case, on this phase of the argument, right here. As The Representative of New Hampshire in Con gress, Mr. Webster on the 9th of December, 1814, the law for compulsory army and military service being under consideration, said: "The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and ille gal ought to be prevented, by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State Government to protect their own authority over their own Militia, and to interpose between their citizens and ar bitrary power. These are among the objects for which State Governments exist; and their highest obligations bind them to the preservation of their own rights and the liberties of their people. I express these sentiments here, sir, because I shall ex press them to my constituents. Both they and myself live under a Constitution, which teaches us that the doctrine of non-resis tance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. With the same earnestness with which I now exhort you to forbear from these measures, I shall exhort them to exercise their un-. questionable right of providing for the security of their own liberties." (C. H. Vantine: The Letters of Daniel Webster 268 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH p. 67). Never did Calhoun utter stronger States-right senti ments than these. In support of his imaginary theory of nationalization, Mr. Adams quotes similar sentiments from the address of Governor Jonathan Trumbull to the Legislature of Connecticut, in special session, Feb. 23, 1809, as follows: "Whenever our National Leg islature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their Con stitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergen cies, devolves the arduous task--it is their right--it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the Gen eral Government." Along the same line he quotes from the resolutions of the Hartford Convention, saying, "They follow closely Madison's own language in draughting the Virginia res olutions of 1798," these words: "The mode and the energy of the opposition should always conform to the nature of the vio lation, the intention of its authors, the extent of the injury in flicted, the determination manifested to persist in it, and the danger of delay. But in case of deliberate, dangerous, and pal pable infractions of the Constitution, affecting the sovereignty of a State, and liberties of the people, it is not only the right but the duty of such a State to interpose its authority for their protection in the manner best calculated to secure that end. When emergencies occur wHich are beyond the reach of the judicial tri bunals, or too pressing to admit of delay incident to their forms, States which have no common umpire must be their own judges, and execute their own decisions." Stronger and clearer Statesright sentiments were never uttered by the most rabid secession ists. Why does Mr. Adams quote these States-rights sentiments from such sources? Because he thinks they form the basis for a superb argument in behalf of nationalization, so called. He next quotes as if triumphantly, these words of Webster in reply to Hayne: "I do not hold that the Hartford Convention was pardonable even to the extent of the gentlemen's admission, if its objects were really such as have been imputed to it." Mr. Adams comments: "It is somewhat curious to consider what would have been the attitude of the Massachusetts Senator, if, after uttering these words, the Senator from South Carolina hacl RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 26S been able to confront him with his speech fifteen years previous in the other hall of the Capitol. But 'Manners with fortune's humors turn with climes, Tenets with books, and principles with times.'" We now propose to turn the tables on this fatalist. If a change of opinion during fifteen years is proof that Webster had national ized, what shall be said of him when nine years later, in January, 1839,--six years after the Webster-Calhoun discussion in the Senate,--before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Bank of Augusta vs. Earle, he returned to first princi ples, that is to Constitutional principles? He then and there spoke as follows: "But it is argued, that though this law of comity exists between independent nations, it does not exist be tween the States of the Union. That argument appears to have been the foundation of the judgment of the court below. "In respect to this law of comity, it is said, States are not nations; they have no National Sovereignty; a sort of residuum of sovereignty is all that remains to them. The National Sov ereignty, it is said, is conferred on this Government, and part of the municipal sovereignty. The rest of the municipal sovereign ty belongs to the States. Notwithstanding the respect which I entertain for the learned judge, who presided in that court, I cannot follow in the train of his argument. I can make no diagram, such as this, of the partition of National character between the States and General Governments. I cannot map it out, and say, so far is National and so far is municipal; and here is the exact line where the one begins and the other ends. We have no second L,a Place, and we never shall have, with his Mechanique Politique, able to define and describe the orbit of each sphere in our political system with such exact mathe matical precision. There is no such thing as arranging these Governments of ours by the laws of gravitation, so that they will be sure to go on forever without infringing. These insti tutions are practical, admirable, glorious, blessed creations. Still they were when created, experimental institutions; and if the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States had set down in it certain general definitions of power, such 270 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH. as have been alleged, in the argument of this case, and stopped there, 1 verily believe that in the course of fifty years which have since elapsed, this Government would never have gone into operation. "Suppose the Constitution had said, in terms after the lan guage of the court below--all National Sovereignty shall belong to the United States; all municipal sovereignty to the several States. I will say, that however clear, however distinct such a definition may appear to those who use it, the employment of it, in the Constitution, could only have led to utter confusion and uncertainty. I am not prepared to say that the States have no National Sovereignty. The laws of some of the States --Maryland and Virginia, for instance--provide punishment for treason. The power thus exercised is certainly, not municipal. Virginia has a law of alienage; that is, a power exercised against a foreign nation. Does not the question necessarily arise, when a power is exercised concerning an alien enemy--enemy to whom? The law of escheat, which exists in all the States, is also the exercise of a Great Sovereign Power. "The term Sovereignty does not occur in the Constitution at all. The Constitution treats States as States, and the United States as the United States, and by careful enumeration, declares all the powers that are granted belong to the United States, and all the rest are reserved to the States. If we pursue to the ex treme point, the powers granted, and the powers reserved, the powers of the General and State Governments will be found, and it is to be feared, infringing and in conflict. Our hope is that the prudence and partriotism of the States, and the wis dom of the Government, will prevent that catastrophe. For myself, I will pursue the advice of the court in Deveaux's case; I will avoid nice metaphysical substitutes, and all useless theories; I will keep my feet out of the traps of general definition; I will keep my feet out of all traps; I will keep to things as they are, and go on further to inquire what might be, if they were not what they are. The States of the Union, as States, are subject to all the voluntary and customary laws of nations." BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 271 Talk about your political cements, such as the steam, whose expulsive power gives to the volcano its crater; and that of electricity, whose driving force rends the giant of the forest; and as that of the war in 1812 with its Hartford Convention. But there is no political cement, worthy the name, except that of the American Constitution. We have seen Webster in the House of Representatives the bold and able defender of the Constitu tion, as the only hope for the rights and independence of the States. We have seen him fifteen years later in a heated debate with Hayne in the United States Senate, and have heard him de clare, "I do not hold that the Hartford Convention is pardon able." We have seen these words construed to mean that he was nationalized, that he had abandoned the Constitution. Nine years still later, we have seen him standing before the August tribunal of the United States Supreme Court. The lights of fifty-six summers encircles his brow. He is in the prime of life, and in full possession of the powers of his giant intellect. He is unrobed -of all false logic, and stands erect the most stately form in all America, the champion of the Constitution. He speaks: "I am not prepared to say the States have no Na tional Sovereignty." Then in concise terms his next words give the proof: "The laws of some of the States--Maryland and Virginia, for instance--provide punishment for treason. The power thus exercised is certainly not municipal. Virginia has a law of alienage; that is a power exercised against a foreign nation. Does not the question necessarily arise, when a power is exercised concerning an alien enemy--enemy to whom? The law of escheat which exists in all the States, is also the exercise of a great Sovereign power." Pausing here and earnestly gazing into the face of each mem ber of that dignified tribunal, his next words are uttered with deliberation and emphasis: "The term Sovereignty does not occur in the Constitution at all. The Constitution treats States as States and the United States as the United States," that is the Constitution treats States as Nations, and the United States as Untied States, or United Nations. 272 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH How pitiful is nationalization in the presence of this logic! Nationalization, a usurper of the Constitution, and yet a mere imaginary public opinion, unreal, unsupported, but not unasserted, "signifying things different at different times and in different places" 1 What a substitute for the Constitution 1 What a justi fication for the Great War! Along the line of this inexorable argument, the Supreme Court rendered its decision. Here it is in part: "It has, however, been supposed that the rules of comity between foreign Nations do not apply to the States of this Union; that they extend to one another no other rights than those which are given by the Consitution of the United States; and that the courts of the General Government are not at liberty to presume, in the absence of all legislation on the subject, that a State has adopted the comity of Nations toward the other States, as a part of its jurisprudence or that it acknowledges any right but those which are secured by the Constitution of the United States. The court thinks other wise. The intimate Union of these States, as members of the same great political family; the deep and vital interests which bind them so closely together; should lead us, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to presume a greater degree of comity and friendship, and kindness toward one another, than we should be authorized to presume between foreign Nations. And when (without doubt it must occasionally happen) the interest or pol-. icy of any State requires it to restrict the rule, it has but to de clare its will, and the legal presumption is at once at an end. But until this is done, upon what grounds could this court re fuse to administer the law of international comity between these States? They are Sovereign States, and the history of the past, and the events which are daily occurring, furnish the strongest evidence that they have adopted toward each other the laws of comity in their fullest extent. "But it cannot be necessary to pursue the argument further. We think it is well settled, that by the law o$ comity among Nations, a corporation created by one Sovereignty is permitted to make contracts in another, and to sue in its courts; and that RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 273 the same law of comity prevails among the several Sovereignties of this Union." Talk about your fictitious "Nationalization"! It is certain this court was not nationalized. It is certain "the Sovereign States" were not. It is certain there would have been no such term known to American politics had the Constitution authorized the aggressions of the North in the Sixties. When Webster stood before that august tribunal no such term was on the lips of an American statesman. It is only one of the many illegal children born of necessity since the War. That Webster's views had undergone a complete change since his debates with Hayne and Calhoun is further seen in his cele brated letter to the Barings of London in 1838. It is as follows: "Your first inquiry is, 'whether the Legislature of one of the States has legal and Constitutional power to contract loans at home and abroad.' "To this I answer that the Legislature of a State has such power; and how any doubt could have arisen on this point is dif ficult for me to conceive. Every State is an independent, sover eign, political community, except in so far as certain powers, which it might otherwise have exercised, have been conferred on a General Government, established under a written Constitu tion, and exerting its authority over the people of all the States. This General Government is a limited Government. Its powers are specified and enumerated. All powers not conferred upon it remain with the States and with the people. The State Legis latures, on the other hand, possess all usual and extraordinary powers of Government, subject to any limitations which may be imposed by their own Constitutions, and, with the exception, as I have said, of the operation on those powers of the Constitution of the United States. "The security for State loans is the plighted faith of the State, as a political community. It rests on the same basis as other contracts with established governments--the same basis, for ex ample, as loans made in the United States under the authority of Congress; that is to say, the good faith of the Government making the loan, and its ability to fulfil its engagements. 274 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH "It has been said the States cannot be sued on these bonds. But neither could the United States be sued, nor, as I suppose, the Crown of England in a like case. Nor would the power of suing, probably, give the creditor any substantial additional se curity. The solemn obligations of a Government, arising on its own acknowledged bond, would not be enhanced by a judg ment rendered on such a bond. It either could not, or would not, make provision for paying the bond, it is not probable that it could and would make provision for satisfying the judgment." (Nile's National Register, Vol. 57, pp 273-41.) Here is one of the clearest expositions of the nature of the United States Government ever written. The language is sim plicity itself. It is as clear as simple. In it Mr. Webster de clares that "every State is an independent, sovereign, political community"; and that "the General Government is a limited Gov ernment," "its powers" being "specified and enumerated." He is the main witness of Charles Francis Adams and Francis New ton Thorpe. Therefore they can not discard his testimony. As early as 1803 Judge Tucker in his edition of Blackstone utters similar statements in these words: "The Federal Govern ment, then, appears to be the organ through which the United Republics communicate with foreign Nations, and with each oth er. Their submission to its operation is voluntary; its councils, its engagements, its authority, is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they have been swallowed up. Each is still a perfect State, still Sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, to the most unlimited extent. But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of Sover eignty by the several States (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of Sovereignty by the States individually is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned; nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present Constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of the Union; an event which no good or wise administration will ever hazard." RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 275 When the bill for the purchase of Louisiana was before Con gress Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts, opposed it on the ground that it would disturb the balance of power east of the Mississ ippi and render New England secondary as to influence in pub lic affairs. He said.in the House on the llth of January, 1811: "The principle of the bill materially affects the liberties and rights of the whole people of the United States. To me it ap pears that it would justify a revolution in this country, and that in no great length of time it may produce one. .... I am compelled to declare it as my deliberate opinion,that, if this bill passes, the bonds of this Union are, virtually, dissolved; that the States which compose it are free from their moral obliga tions, and that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to be prepared definitely for a separation; amicably, if they can; violently, if they must." Why does Quincy declare the right of secession here? Be cause with Tucker and Webster and Hamilton and Madison and Jefferson and all of the great political luminaries of the early days of this Republic, the Union was regarded as a compact among the States, an organ through which the United Republics communicate with foreign Nations and with each other, and through which the States transact business of common interest to all. Hence he speaks of the Compact as a moral obligation, and because voluntarily made, may be voluntarily annulled. In entering into this Compact the States were very cautious for they were very jealous of their rights as States. After the Declaration of Independence they were bound to each other sim ply by mutual interests and mutual dangers. Without a general government they fought to a successful issue the greatest of world powers. It was not till March 1781, only a few months before the close of the war, the last State ratified the Articles of the Confederation. They had hesitated, they had squabbled for five years. And yet the Confederation was a mere league of States with inadequate powers having but little trace of Nation ality. When a more perfect Union was realized to be a necessity for their mutual benefit, the States met in Convention in Philadel- 276 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH phia and drew up a new Compact known as the Federal Consti tution. It was submitted to the States for their ratification. Again they were jealous and cautious. In some quarters it met with violent opposition. In the discussion it was claimed by some that no provision was expressly made for the secession of a State. This objection was successfully met by the reply that "no such provision was necessary as each State had the inherent right to withdraw from the Compact," just as it had the inherent right to enter into it. It was also opposed by some because it made no provision to prevent the abolition of slavery. This also was declared not to be necessary because the United States could exercise no authority not specifically granted by the Constitution. To remove all doubt as to the right of a State to secede three of the thirteen States expressly reserved that right in their ordi nance of ratification. These States were Virginia, New York and Rhode Island. The State of Virginia in her ordinance of ratification used these memorable words: "The delegates do declare and make known that the powers granted under the Con stitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." New York in her ratifying ordinance reserved the right to secede in these words: "The powers of Government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness." Rhode Island waited till the 29th day of May, 1790, more than one year after the inauguration of Washington, and then ratified the Constitution, reserving the right to secede in the identical words used by New York, viz: "The powers of Government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become neces sary to their happiness." Whatever rights belonged to these three States belonged to all. Otherwise the States had entered into a Compact on un equal terms. But they did not enter the Compact on unequal terms. Therefore the rights of these three States were the rights of the thirteen. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 277 It is impossible for truth and facts to weave a stronger argu ment in behalf of any right than they have woven in regard to the right of the States to withdraw from the Union anterior to the war. Therefore the South, in exercising this right in 186061, was not in rebellion. If not in rebellion she was not respon sible for the Great War. CHAPTER XX. FOURTEEN SUBSTITUTES FOR THE CON STITUTION GROUPED, 1. A Pious Fraud. 2. "We, the People." 3. A Divided Sovereignty. 4. "The Union Much Older than the Constitu tion." 5. A Higher Law. 6. An Unwritten Constitution. 7. A Common Law. 8. The Federal Government an Organic Growth. 9. The Silence of the Constitution. 10. The Wrong of Slavery. 11. A Party Platform. 12. Indifference of For eign Immigrants. 13. Nationalization. 14. Fate. A Few Admitted Faffs. If such writers as Charles Francis Adams, Francis Newton Thorpe, and J. P. Gordy, in their efforts to place the tremen dous responsibilities of the Great War on the South, can pro duce no sustaining facts there are no such facts. We lay down as an indisputable proposition that facts which ignore the Con stitution are not admissable. If there is one central fact in the history of our country around which all other facts should circle, that one fact is the Federal Constitution. By its adoption, all the States pledged their sacred honor to abide its terms. It was the "Balm of Gilead" for all their wounds. To reject it was to invite political disease and death. It was rejected in the Sixties by the North; and the world knows the result. Now that the war is a thing of the past its defenders find themselves embarrassed from a Constitutional standpoint. Somuch was said; so much was done; so much sorrow and suffer ing and death and ruin was brought to the country--all in the name of the Constitution--that it is now more than human na ture can do to confess the wrong. Therefore from sheer neces sity they have invented substitutes for the constitution. These substitutes abound. They are are too numerous for all to receive proper attention here. We shall therefore confine ourselves to only fourteen. Were it not for the very serious results that fol lowed the violation of the Constitution by the North in the Six- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 279 ties these substitutes would be laughable. To future generations they will be the subjects of ridicule, yea of scorn; for what sub stitutes for the Constitution, the embodiment, of the plighted faith of the States, could justify all the horrors of the Sixties? We have perhaps mentioned already the most, if not all of the sub stitutes, we are now about to consider. However that may be, we now propose to group them that the world may behold the motley group. 1. The first substitute we shall mention is "A Pious Fraud." Fraud is its name. Even its piety cannot change either its name or its character. Its claim to support the Constitution is unsustained by fact, fitness, or reason. J. P. Gordy, for the want of sustaining facts, has asserted that, "the Convention framed a Constitution by the adoption of which thirteen peoples, imagin ing themselves still independent and sovereign, really acknowl edged themselves to be parts of a single political whole." (Po litical Parties in the United States.) Mr. Gordy thus declares that the States were Independent and Sovereign before they adopted the Constitution, a fact he could not deny. But his con cluding clause is without even the semblance of fact, resting on his bare assertion. Charles Francis Adams, referring to these words of Gordy, and basing his statement on them, declared that "A Pious Fraud was, in 1788, perpetrated on the average Ameri can"--that is, the States were robbed of their independence and sovereignty without their knowing it. What a bold asser tion! How reckless, how unfounded! What a stretch of the imagination! What limitation can be fixed for inventive genius under the strain of necessity! Do not Mr. Gordy and Mr. Ariams know that stolen goods still belong to the rightful owner? Do they not, therefore, also know that even if such an absurdity could have been fact the States would still have maintained their Independence and Sovereignty? But whether there was fraud or no fraud, one thing is assured beyond contradiction, viz: That the intention of the framers of the Constitution was to preserve the Independence and Sovereignty of the States. And who does not know the supreme importance of the intention of the law makers in determining the true construction of the law? But, 280 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH aside from it all, who believes that the Philadelphia Convention was capable of deliberately planning and committing a fraud, whether pious or impious ? Never assembled for nobler purpose nobler specimens of true and virtuous manhood. Very bold in deed is the man who would make such a charge! Who believes that, but for sheer necessity, such a fraud would have ever been invented, yea, would ever have been conceived in the brain of man? There was no such fraud. 2. A second Substitute is "We, the People" in the preamble of the Constitution. It is conceded that all preamples find their explanation in the body of the instrument. No people, no State, is a truism. And what is a State but "the whole body of a peo ple united under one Government?"' What the State therefore does the people of the State do. What the States united do the people of the States united do. That is all "We the people of the United States" in the preamble to the Constitution declares or means. Do your utmost. You cannot make anything else out of it. It is probable, however, that the'term might have been so expressed as to have rendered it more difficult for designing poli ticians to twist its meaning to suit their own sinister designs. Let us experiment. If the preamble had said, "We the People of the respective States United," would it have had a different meaning from "We the People of the United States"? If it had read "We the States United," would it not have meant the same since a State is the whole body of people united under one gov ernment? What then, but an inevitable necessity could find the Consolidation of the States in the term, "We the People of the United States"? L/et us look a little further. Were they not States, or, as Web ster and Madison and others termed them, nations united for a common purpose, having a common interest? The very face of the instrument shows they did not part with all their powers, but only with such as they specified in the instrument. Did they not continue to exist still as the same States and under the same names? As the same States, known by the same names as be fore the Union, did they not exercise all the powers they had not ceded? Did they not inaugurate the Federal Government RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 281 itself? Did that Federal Givernment have the right to exercise a single power these States had not granted it? Could the Gov ernment ever have gone into operation without the consent of these States in their political capacity? Besides, was not the Constitution a Compact among the States ? Is not this one point in which all authorities are agreed? Will it be argued that it is a compact with the Government and not a compact of each State with the others? Can it be denied that a Government founded on a compact to which each State was a party, was a Federal Government? If it was not a Government formed by a league of the States how shall we account for the fact that the States adopted the Constitution at different times and on different conditions? Have we not shown in a previous chapter that New York, Virginia and Rhode Island entered the Union on conditions proposed by themselves? Did not the last named State refuse to enter the Confederacy for more than a year after the inauguration of Washington? "We the People" means nothing more than that "the people of the several States had been consulted and had given their consent to the instrument." Did not Washington style the Fed eral Government a "Confederated Government"? And what does that mean but States or Nations united in a league, or allied by treaty, or united in a Confederacy? In a pamphlet edition of Webster's speech at Capon Springs in Virginia on the 28th day of June, 1851, Webster affirmed that "the Union was a Union of States," and that it was "founded upon compact." He then added: "How is it to be supposed that when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision and expect, nevertheless, the others to observe the rest?"--that is "a compact broken on one side could not continue to bind the other." These are Webster's own words. A Compact among the States and a Confederacy of the States means the same. Did not all New England during Madison's Administration declare the Government a Confederacy, subject to dissolution! And what is a Confederacy but a league, a cove nant, or contract? When applied to States it is nothing less than a leas^e or covenant, or contract among States. This is as far 282 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH from a consolidation of States as the East is from the West. If we turn to the Philadelphia Convention we find that twentysix times the term "National Government?' was stricken from the Randolph resolutions and twenty-six times the term "United States" was substituted in their stead. If we turn to the States ratifying the Constitution we find them unanimous and emphatic in declaring that this Republic of States is one with limited pow ers--having only granted powers--and that the States are free, independent and sovereign over their reserved rights. If we turn to the Constitution itself we find that all the powers not granted to the Federal Government "are reserved to the States or the people." If we are still in doubt the closing words of that in strument remove all doubt, thus: "Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present." "The States or the people" then mean the States; and the States means the people of the States. What now is the meaning of "We, the People of the United States" in the preamblie of the Constitution? Ne cessity must seek another substitute. And here it is: 3. "A Divided Sovereignty." Comparatively speaking there are only a few who distinguish between the term "Divided Sov ereignty" and "the Divided Powers of Sovereignty." Even Judge Iredell, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, treated the two terms as synonymous. This fact gave the necessitied defenders of the justice of the war against the South a new substitute; one that could be made to seem plaus ible, by quoting a Judge of the Supreme Court, and all who use this argument quote Judge Iredell,--omitting the fact that the Judge made the two terms identical. There is, there can be, no such a thing as "a Divided Sovereignty." Therefore it can not form a basis for an argument. There is such a thing as the divided Powers of Sovereignty. This the States in the Convention realized. "The powers delegated" are words of the Constitution. "The powers reserved to the States are also words of the Constitution. If we look to the Constitution, we do not find in it any such term as "a Divided Sovereignty"-- not even the remotest reference to it. But we do find, from its preamble to its finish, beneath the surface, the consent of RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 283 the States to divide their Powers of Sovereignty with the Cen tral Government, the product of the several States in their political capacity. But if this fiction should be a fact the advocates of centralism would profit nothing. For then the Federal Government would be sovereign over its share of the Divided Sovereignty, and the States, sovereign over their part. Charles Francis Adams con cedes this fact in these words: "In case of a direct and insol uble issue between sovereign State and sovereign Nation every man was not only free to decide, but had to decide the question of ultimate allegiance for himself; and whichever way he decided, he was right. The Constitution gave him two masters. Both he could not serve; and the average man decided which to serve in the light of sentiment, tradition, and environment." If then the term Divided Sovereignty be found in the Constitution, those who gave their allegiance to their sovereign State were "right." Therefore the people of the South were right when they gave their allegiance to their states in the Sixties. Upon what ground then, can this third substitute for the Constitution justify the invasion of the South by the North? Must a people be slaugh tered for being right? 4. A Fourth Substitute is "The Union is Much Older than the Constitution." Did ever fertile brain of Necessity invent a more remarkable fiction? If, for no other reason, it is most remarkable for its absurdity. As well say the superstructure preceded the foundation. This fiction originated in the brain of Abraham Lincoln. The Amer ican ear caught its first note in Lincoln's inaugural address. The order of events was as follows: (1) A Convention of the States in Philadelphia: (2) the framing of the Constitution: (3) the submission of the Constitution to the several States for its ratification or rejection; (4) the ratification of the Constitution by eleven of the thirteen States--two refusing for a time to rat ify it, one waiting for more than a year after the inauguration of Washington. When eight States had adopted the Constitu tion "the Union" did not exist. Why? Because the Constitu tion was master of the situation and it declared that the ratifica- 284 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH tion by nine States was necessary to form the Union. Can it be imagined how this Constitution could have been so author itative and yet not exist? But Lincoln, in order to prove that "the Union is much older than the Constitution," assumed that the thirteen British col onies were thirteen free, independent and sovereign States. An assumption indeed, not fact. His words are these: "It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774." There was no such thing as an American State at that time. All others will find great difficulty in calling this Association of Col onies the Union of States, but Lincoln did not. The Union means a particular Union, not just any asosciation of Colonies or even States. All sensible men (excuse the remark) know that the Union means that particular Union formed by Ameri can States on the basis of the Philadelphia Constitution, this and no other. Upon this false basis Lincoln affirmed that the secession of a State was "insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to cir cumstances .... And to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States." Is not the question pertinent here?--Was it Lincoln's wrong con ception of the origin and nature of the Union, and of the Con stitution and the laws, that inaugurated the war? Who does not know that the American States, or, in the words of Daniel Webster, the American Nations, could not form a league of States or Nation when they were mere British Colon ies, subject provinces of Great Britain; or in other words before they were States or Nations ? Necessity makes plains of moun tains and mountains of plains. Necessity, holding the throttle of a mighty Government, is next to omnipotence itself. Its absurdities are facts. Its foolishness is wisdom. Its madness is justice. Law and facts and all things sacred and holy lay crushed beneath its iron heel. 5. A Fifth Substitute is A Higher Law. We lay down as an indisputable proposition that no Higher Law existed in 1860, which did not exist in 1788. We also lay down as an indisputa- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 285 ble proposition that the Constitution did not conflict with "A Higher Law" in 1788. It therefore follows that the Constitu tion did not conflict with "A Higher Law" in 1860. We also lay down the indisputable proposition that all is not a higher law that is so called. The martyr at the stake is burned in the name of a higher law. Nero assassinated his mother, burned Rome, and made bonfires of Christians,--all in the name of a higher law. Can that be a higher law in the name of which one section of a great country slaughtered the citizens of the other, plundered their homes and ravished their fields, because they were true to their States and faithful to a common compact? Does a Higher Law disregard fidelity to a sacred oath, to a venerated compact, and to legal and inherited rights ? "So spake the friend, and with necessity, The tyrant's plea, excused his devilish deeds." 6. "An Unwritten Constitution," a substitute for the Written Instrument. (Thorpe p. 161). It is remarkable for its origin. It originated in no legislative assembly. Lightning struck the Tree of Necessity, and out dropped "the Unwritten Constitu tion." Without the authority of organized society it was above all authority. Without due process of law it was above all law. It was also remarkable for its uniqueness. It was like no other that ever was, ever is, ever will be, or ever can be. We refer to it in the past tense, for it no longer is. The Constitution which it supplanted stands like adamant, somewhat marred it is true, while the Unwritten Constitution is a mere dream of the past. Its epitaph is written: "Here lies the Unwritten Constitution, one of the many substitutes for the American Char ter of Liberty. It was mysteriously born, without parentage. It served its evil day, and died 'unhonored and unsung.'" See chapter seven, devoted exclusively to this bogus substitute. 7. "A Common law," defined by Charles Francis Adams as a "Metaphysical Abstraction," is another substitute for the Con stitution. The term, "metaphysical abstraction," is obscure in meaning. But obscurity is "trumps" in the hands of the de fenders of the Constitutional right to wage war against the 286 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH South, in the Sixties. If the term, common, designates a law common to the whole country, North and South alike, there was no such law except the common Constitution. But the Com mon Law, here referred to, supplanted the Constitution. There fore it was not that instrument. England has her common law. It receives its binding force from "immemorial usage and universal reception, as ascertained and expressed in the judgment of the Courts." But the Common Law, supplanting the Con stitution, has received no such binding force. Its usage is not from time immemorial. Its recepiton is far from being uni versal, as testified by the facts of history, including the war itself. Nor does it find its justification in having been ascertain ed and expressed in the judgments of the Courts. Such a common law never did exist in the land--not even in all the Northern States. It is mere fiction. What must be the na ture of that Necessity which declares a fiction to be- a reality, and then exalts it to a more honorable position in the welfare of this American Republic than it gives to the fundamental law of the land! 8. A Governmental Organic Growth" supplanted the Consti tution. (The Civil War from a Northern Standpoint, Vol. 15, p. 163). Mr. Thorpe prefaces this fiction with these words: "The Confederation of 1777 was a league created by the States, and the power that creates is always greater than the power that is created." This indisputable fact applies also to the Fed eral Government, for it too was a league created by the States. After stating this fact Mr. Thorpe immediately leaves the field of reality for that of pure fiction, thus: "Yet all the while that this rather indefinite notion of state sovereignty was abroad in the land, the United States as an organic power was stead ily developing. Events stronger than State Constitutions, or arguments of men, were shaping national affairs, and the Na tion as an organic power was in being. That it-was feeble, that its purposes were obscure, and its wants were denied are matters of history; but the fact that a nation, an organism, embodying the will of the whole people, was in being, there can be no doubt." BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 287 That the Government was a league he, Thorpe, could not deny, for it is a fact that stands out upon the eminence of time undis puted. Having admitted this fact he was compelled to admit the sovereignty of the States. Driven by necessity he attempts to overcome the effect of these admissions, by declaring that while the notion of state sovereignty was abroad in the land it was rather indefinite. The facts are that at the time of the Dec laration of Independence, and the framing of the Constitution the notions of State sovereignty were the most definite, the most wide-awake, and the most energetic that ever moved men to ac tion, or communities to noble achievement. They gave to the world the great American charter of human rights and human liberty. Its merits are proclaimed the world around. It is to day revolutionizing the governments of all nations. That charter represents an organic power, indeed, because or ganized on the basis of law and order; and because, as confessed, it was a league of independent sovereign "States or Nations" (Webster). All the growth of the Federal Organism, therefore, depended on the growth of the State Organisms. If the States grew the Federal Government grew. It could not grow apart from the States. They gave it being; they nursed it; they fed it; they clothed it; they gave it its power, its influence; and today, in spite of its terrible internal strife, it is perhaps' the greatest of world powers;--all, all, through the wisdom, and in fluence of the States as separate and independent organisms united for their special good benefit. As the State Govern ments grew in influence and power they signified it by new and ad vanced laws, the acts of their legislatures, passed in due form and with due deliberation. But when "the Federal Organism grew," it forgot its origin and it forgot law and order, and proclaimed its authority over its creators, declaring its purpose to crush all the States that denied its usurped right to do so. One of the two great sections of this Republic refused to acknowledge this as sumed right. The great war resulted, based on usurped au thority. The wrong of that usurpation will wake the echoes of time till time shall be no more. 9. The Silence of the Constitution was another substitute for that instrument. (Lincoln's Cooper Institute speech and his 288 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH Inaugural address). As we have shown elsewhere the silence of the Constitution confers no authority whatever on the Fed eral Government; that on the contrary all the powers not ex pressly granted to the States United belong exclusively to the States. In other words its silence is always against the Govern ment and always for the States in their separate capacity. In his Cooper Institute speech, Mr. Lincoln, referring to the deci sion of the Supreme Court, that slave-owners could take their slaves into the Common Territories and be protected there, said, "But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution;" again, "an inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in it." He makes this statement thinking the Constitution was silent on the subject, but indeed it is the only species of property distinctly and specifically recognized by that instrument. (Art. 3, Sec. 1). In his Inaugural Address he asks: "May Congress pro hibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not ex pressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say." Thus the silence of the Constitution was construed by Mr. Lincoln to give him the right to exercise powers belonging exclusively to the States. Was not this usurpation, pure and simple? False constructions of the Constitution, based on false prem ises, following closely in the wake of the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin, had more to do in causing the war than anything else. May we not conjecture why Lincoln ventured so far? He knew the prevailing sentiment of the North as but few others did. He knew the general ignorance of the people as to the Consti tution. He also knew human nature as well as any man. Nor was he ignorant of the immortality secured in freeing four million of slaves. Did he not define it as "the new birth of freedom?" May not a veteran, a soldier of the entire war, in the name of his comrades who were the bravest of the brave, the loyalest of the loyal, enter a solemn protest against the right of usurped authority to apply to them the epithet of "breeds and traitors;" and to wage against them a most destructive war, unfurling over their in vading millions a flag symbolizing the Constitution unmarred RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 289 by substitutes or false constructions? There beat not a heart in all the Southland during the early Sixties but was true to the unimpaired Constitution of their common country. They could sing- with an earnest pathos the immortal words of Key: "The Star-springled banner, O long may it wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave," 10. "The Wrong of Slarvery" was another substitute for the Constitution. Before his election, in his Cooper Institute speech, Mr. Lincoln said "Their (the South) thinking it (slavery) right and our thinking it wrong is the precise question upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right as they do they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right, but thinking it wrong as we do, can we yield to them?" After his election, on the 22nd day of December, 1860, writing to the Hon. Alexander Stephens of Georgia, he said, "You think slavery is right and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That, I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us." Mr. Thorpe, commenting on these words, says "This 'substan tial difference' compassed the point which could not be com promised." When we consider the significance of Lincoln's question, "Can we yield to them?" and the "substantial differ ence" that admitted of no truce or concession, what are we to think of this substitute; and on whom should rest the responsi bility for that war ? 11. A Party Platform Sectional to the core, was another sub stitute for the Constitution. Its main plank was restriction of slavery. Well did that party know this restriction would not free one slave, or effect the institution in any way. Its effect could be only to increase sectional bitterness both in the North and South. It reversed a decision of the Supreme Court, ren dered only three years in advance. Such was its revolutionary tendency that Francis Newton Thorpe, editor of "The Civil War From a Northern Standpoint," has been compelled to confess. "Of all the presidents from Washington to Lincoln not one stood for an anti-slavery policy, distinctively favoring the limitation of slavery. And their attitude reflected the prevailing opinion of the American people in their time. Slavery was accepted 290 SICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH as an established institution, and under the guardianship and protection of the Constitution and the laws." (p. 52.) Here is a substitute that reversed the policy of all preceding presidents of the Republic, and contradicted the prevailing opinion of the American people for the same length of time. Was this substi tute meant to be revolutionary? 12. The Indifference of Foreign Immigrants as to Constitu tional obligations was another substitute. Charles Francis Adams asks, "What did the foreign immigrants now swarming across the ocean care for States? They knew only the Nation. Brought up in Europe the talk of State sovereignty was to them foolishness. Its alphabet was incomprehensible. In a word, it too was caviare to the general." It is a question easy of com prehension, how these foreigners could be used as tools in the hands of designing ambition, and arrayed against the well-be ing and life of their adopted country, but it is a question of great difficulty, how their ignorance and indifference, and their former custom, could be used as an argument to overthrow the Federal Constitution. Here, confessedly, ignorance was used to justify centralism and coercion. It was used by a few de signing men. May we not also with equal certainty and equal justice infer that the ignorance of the great Northern masses was used by the same designing few to sustain their contention that the Constitution was outgrown, and, therefore, should be subordinated. It was not the Northern masses who incited revolution and slaughter, who sought fame and renown at such a terrible cost, but the Northern few. It was not the Northern few who suffered, bled, and died, but the Northern masses. It was not the Northern masses who were enriched by the results of the war, but the Northern few. 13. Another substitute is Nationalization, Chas. Francis Adams. (Lee's Centennial, p. 12). "By this term is meant the act of transforming a Federal Government defined by Webster a Covenant Government between Nations--into a consolidated Gov ernment ; a Nation of granted powers and, therefore, of limited powers, into a Nation of po%vers not granted, and, therefore, of powers not limited by the States." In support of this fiction, treated by Mr. Adams as a fact, he says, "There can be little EICHAEDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 291 question that during the lives of two successive generations a custom of nationality grew up which became the accepted Com mon Law of the land. This was true in the South as well as in the North." This is all mere assumption. It is well known that it does not apply to the South in the remotest degree. We have shown in chapter 19 that Mr. Adams in reply to the College President admits that the Virginian is right on the main issue, which is: "The Confederate character of the Union was more strongly impressed upon the South in 1861 than in 1788, fol lowed by these words of similar meaning: "The South had never suffered nationality in spirit or in Fact." Mr. Adams' admission is in these words: "But on the main issue--the es sential point in the extract from his letter--the writer was, I think right. Previous to 1861 the South did not undergo na tionalization, to the same extent, at any event, as the North." A further effort of Mr. Adams to sustain his nationalization theory is in these words: "The custom of nationality even in the South was incontrovertibly shown in the very act of secession --the seceding States at once crystallizing into a Confederacy. Nationality was assumed as a thing of course." If by the term nationality Mr. Adams means that character of nationality as sumed by the union of the eleven Confederate States in a com mon Government, the writer makes no issue with him. For this was precisely the character of the nationality the South and the world attributed to the United States Government prior to ISfil. The Confederation of the eleven Southern States in 1861 meant just what the Confederation of the thirteen original States did by their Confederation. We shall now show from Mr. Adams's own lips that the Con federation of the original thirteen States meant the very opposite to Centralism. Here are his plain words of unmistakable mean ing: "When that war broke out in 1861 the last of the framers of the Constitution had been a score of years in his grave; but evidence is conclusive that until the decennium between 1830 and 1840 the belief was nearly universal that in case of an unavoidable issue, Sovereignty resided in the State, and to it allegiance was due. The law was laid down in the Kentucky resolutions of 1789; and to the law thus laid down Webster assented. Chancellor Rawls 292 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH so propounded the law; and such was the understanding of so un prejudiced a foreign observer as DeTocqueville. The technical argument--the logic of the proposition--seems plain and to my thought unanswerable. The original sovereignty was indis putable in the State." (Lee's Centennial). Strong words are these from the lips of a Northern veteran. They confess all that the South claims in defense of the righteousness of her cause. It is little wonder that substitutes for the Constitution should abound. 14. Fate, hallowed by mystery, is another substitute. Within its mystic self it is thought exist the unknown and the unknow able. Wrong'conceptions of its true nature cause many guilty consciences to seek its mysterious protection. Fate is not law, but result. It is not cause, but its effect. It therefore cannot exist without law and without cause. A fate without a cause has never been known. Immutable law exists in all the ramifications of nature. It is in the movement of an atom. It directs and guides the movements of the vast solar systems with all their satellites, asteroids, meteoroids, and com ets. The result of this law is the absolute safety of the Uni verse;--that is, its secure fate is due to the immutable law of the Universe. We therefore conclude that fate is a result, not a law; an effect, not a cause. Unchangeable law controls all causes; and all causes have their results or effect; and the na ture of a cause determines the nature of the effect. "Whatso ever a man soweth that shall he also reap." If he sows wheat, he is fated to reap wheat. A criminal dies on the gallows; his crimes are the cause; the gallows his fate. Fate is not an eternal principle that binds man and God and all other intelligences and all things else, as some think. No one has ever claimed that fate is a person, or any other thing of intelligence. Fate therefore has no will, and hence no power to choose. Also, being without intelligence, it has no power to guide or direct. Therefore, whatever it is, it has neither the power of choice nor the ability to instruct. It Is as helpless, and as much under the control of law, as a falling body. Yet men claim for this powerless non-descript a force that even fet ters Omnipotence. Such are the inevitable conclusions from RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 293 impeachable premises. All know there is no power above that of the Omnipotent God of this Universe, its Creator and Preser ver. Therefore Fate is not what some think it is, but simply the result of a cause;--this and nothing more. But be fate whatever it may it is absolutely certain it is not a substitute for the Constitution. If, however, there could pos sibly be a question as to its being a rightful substitute for the Constitution the silence of that instrument would make the State and not the Federal Government the judge unless its silence is also subordinated to Fate's imperious rules. The same may be said of all the thirteen other so-called Substitutes grouped in this chapter for the particular purpose of calling special attention to their true nature, and hence to their self-evident unfitness for so high a purpose. We shall treat of other substitutes as the occasion demands. A few Admitted Facts in this connection; Charles Francis Adams, in Lee's Centennial, states this universally admitted fact: "All attributes not specifically conceded were reserved to the States, and no attributes of moment were to be construed as conceded by implication. There is no attribute of sovereignty so important as allegiance--the citizenship--Not only was alle giance--the right to define and establish citizenship)--not among the attributes specifically conceded by the several States to the central nationality, but, on the contrary it was explicitly re served, the instrument declaring that 'the citizens of each State' should be entitled to 'all the privileges and immunities of citi zens in the several States.' Ultimate allegiance was, therefore, due to the State which defined and created citizenship, and not to the central organization which accepted as citizens whomso ever the states pronounced to be such. Thus far I have never been able to see where room was left for doubt. Citizenship was an attribute recognized by the Constitution as originating with, and of course belonging to, the several States." (pp. 11 and 12). Mr. Thorpe, Editor of the Civil War from a Northern stand point, admits as much. But just as soon as such admissions are made, apparently in good faith, the admitter flies off at a tangent in language somewhat like these words of Mr. Adams: 294 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH "The Anglo Saxon race and their hard common sense," "their established custom of recognizing as a binding rule of action are embodied in what they are proud to term Common Law," etc. They then unblushingly subordinated the Constitution to the An glo Saxon "Common Sense" and "Common Law," etc. They also refer to the North as constituting "the conservative ma jority" and as "believers in National Sovereignty," and to the South as "those who passionately adhered to State sovereignty, treading in the footsteps of the fathers," and "those who have become eighteenth century reactionists." Pause here for a moment's reflection. The Constitution was once revered alike in the North and in the South. Then came there a time when the North ranked substitutes above the Con stitution as the supreme law of the land while the South for her unbroken devotion to the Constitution was given the sobriquet of "Eighteenth Century reactionists." By this fanciful epithet is meant the South in 1861 still construed the Constitution as it was construed during Washington's term of office as Presi dent. Was it a crime to place Washington's construction of the Constitution and that of his compeers upon this instrument? If not by what code of morals was the South condemned in 1861 as "rebels and traitors?" CHAPTER XXI. "COERCION UNDER THE SMOOTH PHRASES OF EXECUTING THE LAWS AND PRO TECTING PUBLIC PROPERTY.'* (Senator Lane of Oregon.) Among other things we have shown that in the early days of this Republic no man denied the right of secession. We have shown that the Federal Government taught this right to its own cadets in its own military school at West Point. We have shown that as late as 1844 when the annexation of Texas was a burning issue the New England States asserted this right as a matter of fact. We have shown that four years later, in 1848, Abraham Lincoln, in the broadest of terms, declared the right of a State to secede. The unmistakable meaning of the fourteen substitutes for the Constitution, recited in the last chap ter, teach the same lesson. In short we have shown from high Northern authority that in the dawn of this Republic, when the people were deeply concerned on the question of State rights and State Sovereignty that "nine men out of every ten in the North and ninety-nine out of every hundred in the South" be lieved the "States had this right. In the closing days of 1860 and early days of 1861, before Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated, the public mind was being tested as to the right of the Federal Government "to enforce the law and collect revenues in the seceding States." Expressions of opinion, by the leading statesmen and leading papers in the North, developed the fact that in spite of "unwritten constitu tions," "higher laws," "common laws," "nationalization," etc., the South was not alone by a great deal, even then, in asserting the right of secession. Few indeed were those who openly de clared the right of the Government to coerce the seceding States. And even these few presented it under the "delusive and am- 296 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH biguous guise of the 'the execution of the laws' and 'protection of public property.' " Mr. Greely, the editor of the New York Tribune and author of "The American Conflict," on November the 9th, 1860, only a few days after the election of Lincoln, said: "We hold with Jefferson to the inalienable right of communities to alter or abolish forms of government that have become oppressive, or injurious; and if the Cotton States shall decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be revolutionary but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how one party can have a right tto do what another party has the right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union, and nullify or defy the laws thereof. And when ever a considerable section of our country shall deliberately re solve to go out, we shall resist all coercion measures designed to keep her in. We .hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets." (American Conflict ch. 23, p 359.) Mr. Greely, as editor of the Tribune, did more perhaps than any other in securing the election of Lincoln. He was regard ed as Lincoln's most influential champion. These words of his have the true Constitutional ring, and are kindred in sentiment to the utterances of Hamilton and Madison and Marshall and all the great statesmen who wrought so well in the early days of this American Republic. The Albany Argus, only second in ability to that of Tri bune said: "We sympathize with and justify the South as far as this: their rights have been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms of the Constitution and, beyond this limit their feelings have been insulted and their interest and honor assailed by almost every possible form of denunciation and invective; and, if we deemed it certain that the real animus of the Republican Party could be carried into the administration of the Federal Government, and become the permanent policy of the Nation, we should think that all the instincts of selfpreservation and of manhood rightfully impel them to a resort to revolution and to a separation front the Union, and we RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 297 would applaud them and wish them God-speed in the adoption of such a remedy. . . . "If South Carolina or any other State, through a convention of her people, shall formally separate herself from the Union, probably both the present and the next administration will simply let her alone, and quietly allow all the functions of the Federal Government within her limits to be suspended. Any other course would be madness; as it would at once enlist all the Southern States in the controversy and plunge the whole country into a civil war. ... As a matter of policy and wisdom, therefore, independent of the question of right, we should deem resort to force most disastrous." (American Con flict). The American Conflict is also authority that the New York Herald, about the same time, said, "Each State is organized as a complete Government, holding the purse and weilding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of Confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and repell coercion as a Nation might repell invasion." These great papers, centers of wide influence, went into the homes of Northern millions. Doubtless in a vast majority of those homes their views on the right of a State to secede were heartily endorsed. The question, therefore, is how were these wide-spread sentiments in favor of peace overcome and made to favor coercion. We shall see as we proceed. On the 21st day of January, 1861, only a month and a few days before the inauguration of Lincoln, a vast meeting of prominent citizens assembled in the city of New York. Six States had now seceded, and the condition of the country was perilous. This alarming condition of the country had called to gether this great assembly. James S. Thayer was one of the principle speakers. His speech was received with great ap plause. Here are sentences from that speech: "We can at least, in an authoritative way and a practical manner, arrive at the basis of a peaceable separation. (Applause). We can at least by discussion enlighten, settle, and concentrate public senti ment in the State of New York upon this question, and save it from a fearful current, which circuitously but certainly sweeps 298 EICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH madly on, through the narrow gorge of 'the enforcement of the laws' to the shoreless ocean of civil war! (Cheers). Against this, under all circumstances, in every place and form, we must now and at all times oppose a resolute, unfaltering resistance. The public mind will bear the avowal, and let us make it,-- that if a revolution of force is to begin it shall be inaugurated at home. And if the incoming administration shall attempt to carry out the line of policy that has been foreshadowed, we announce that, when the hand of Black Republicanism turns to blood-red, and seeks from the fragment of the Constitution to construct a scaffolding for coercion--another name for execution --we will reverse the order of the French Revolution, and save the blood of the people by making those who would inaugurate a reign of terror the first victims of a national guillotine." (En thusiastic applause.) "It is announced that the Republican administration will en force the laws against and in all the seceding States. A nice discrimination must be exercised in the performance of this duty. You remember 'the story of William Tell . . . Let an arrow winged by Federal bow strike the heart of an American citizen, and who can number the avenging darts that will cloud the heavens in the conflict that will ensue? (Prolonged ap plause). What then is the duty of the State of New York? What shall we say to our people when we come to meet this state of facts? That the Union must be preserved? But if that can not be done, what then? Peaceful separation. (Applause). Pain ful and humiliating as it is, let us temper it with all we can of love and kindness, so that we may yet be left in a compara tively prosperous condition, in friendly relations to another con federacy." (Cheers.) If those patriotic and well received sentiments had prevailed in the North all the woes, all the heart-aches, all the devasta tions of homes and property, and all the hundreds of thousands of patriot lives that went out in the mighty struggle, would have been saved, and the way would have been paved for the reuniting of the dissatisfied and severed States. But, instead, the hopeless note of alarm was sounded in the words, "the fear ful current which circuitously but certainly sweeps madly on, RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 299 through the narrow gorge of 'the enforcement of the laws' to the shoreless ocean of civil war." And through that deceptive gorge the "current" swept on and on till the whole South land lay devasted and in ruins, and the flower of her chivalry slept in warriors' graves. In that meeting there was another distinguished citizen of the Empire State. It was no less than the ex-Governor Horatio Seymour. He propounded this question: "Whether successful coercion by the North is less revolutionary than successful se cession by the South? Shall we prevent revolution by being foremost in overthrowing the principles of our Government, and all that makes it valuable to our people, and distinguishes it among the nations of the earth?" Who can deny the revolu tionary character of coercion ? Who can deny that in the exer cise of coercion which immediately followed the inauguration of the Lincoln-Seward administration, they were less absolute in the exercise of power than were Nero or the Pharaohs? Who does not know how deceitfully and ruthlessly the border Slates, without their consent, were invaded and their citizens arrested without warrant or charge, and the State Governments them selves dominated and terrorized into subjugation ? There was still another distinguished citizen in that meeting. It was the venerable ex-Chancellor Walworth. His words, mel lowed by age, experience, and wisdom, were these: "It would be as brutal in my opinion to send men to butcher our own brothers of the Southern States as it would be to massacre them in the Northern States. We are told, 'however,that it is our duty to, and we must enforce the laws. But why and what laws are to be enforced? There were laws to be enforced in the Ameri can Revolution. . . . Did Lord Chatham go for enforcing those laws? No, he gloried in the defense of the liberties of America. He made that memorable declaration in the British Parliament, "If I were an American citizen instead of being, as I am, an Englishman, I never would submit to such laws,-- never, never, never." (Prolonged applause). Other distinguished speakers were present and uttered similar sentiments. Resolutions of a reconciliatory nature were adopt ed. And let it be remembered that these speeches and these 300 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH resolutions were made more than a month in advance of the inauguration of Lincoln. The leading statesmen saw that a policy was shaping, which, if adopted by the incoming adminis tration, would inaugurate war under the guise of "enforcing the laws and collecting the revenues"; and hence their patriotic efforts to avert it. The next month the Detroit Free Press, a paper that ranked with the best and most influential said, "If there shall not be a change in the present seeming purpose to yield to no accomodation of the national difficulties, and if troops shall be raised in the North to march against the people of the South a fire in the rear will be opened upon such troops which will either stop their march altogether, or wonderfully accelerate it." These sentiments show that throughout the North there was a conviction that the policy of Lincoln's administration would be coercion,and that it would be insidiously inaugurated, and successfully, through the deceptive policy of "enforcing the laws and collecting the revenues." It was also known that when war was once inaugurated that the masses of each section would rally to their own sectional standard. None knew this better than did Lincoln and Seward. Nor were there ever two men better qualified to invent excuses to inflame the public im'nd than Lincoln and Seward. We also quote from "The Union," a most influential paper of Bangor, Maine, the most Northeastern State of the Republic, as follows: "The difficulties between the North and the South must be compromised or the separation of the States shall be peaceable. If the Republicans refuse to go the full length of the Crirtenden amendment--which is the very least the South can or ought to take--then here in Maine, not a Democrat will be found who will raise his arm against his brethren of the South. From one end of the State to the other let the cry of Democracy be Com promise or Peaceable Separation!" These were strong but futile utterances. The administration seemed blind and deaf to the perils of the hour. These and similar sentiments were widely copied throughout the Northern States with approval. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 301 When the resolutions of the Peace Congress were presented in the House of Congress, Mr. Crittenden's resolutions were still pending in the Senate. The leading features of the two sets of resolutions very much resembled each other, so much so that Mr. Crittenden promptly expressed his willingness to accept them as a substitute for his own. He eloquently urged their adoption. They were spurned by the majority. Both the Crittenden resolutions and those of the Peace Congress were de feated. Some of the extreme Republicans objected to their being considered at all. Yet we are told in bold type by Frances Newton Thorpe (The Civil War p 2:34): "But the South had no thought of listening to further compromise. For this rea son all attempts at compromise failed, and compromise was the earnest thought and wish of such men as Crittenden of Ken tucky." What perversions of history will not sectionalism make! The Peace Congress was the product of a Southern State. The Crittenden resolutions were voted for by every Southern repre sentative. Every voice from the South was for compromise till compromise was out of the question, made so exclusively by the North. On the 2nd day of March 1861, just two days before Lin coln was inaugurated Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon, speaking on these resolutions, and replying to Senator Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, afterwards President of the United States, said: "The Senator of Tennessee complains of my remarks on his speech. He complained of the tone and temper of what I said. He complained that I replied at all, as I was a Northern Sena tor. Mr. President, I am a citizen of this Union, and a Sena tor of the Untied States. My residence is in the North, but I have never seen the day, and I never shall, when I will refuse justice as readily to the South as to the North. I know nothing but my country, the whole country, the Constitution and the equality of the States--the equal right of every man in the common territory of the whole country; and by that I shall stand. "The Senator complained that 1 replied at all, as I am a Northern Senator, and a Democrat whom he had supported at the last election for a high office (Vice President). Now, I was* 302 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH as I stated at the time, surprised at the Senator's speech, because I understood it to be for coercion, as I think it was understoood by almost every one else, except, as we are now told, by the Sena tor himself; and I still think it amounted to a coercion speech, notwithstanding the soft and plausible phrases by which he de scribes it,--a speech for the execution of the laws and the pro tection of the Federal property. Sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession, then, whenever a State exercises that right this Government has no laws in that State to execute: nor has it any property in such State that can be protected by the power of this Government. In attempting, however, to sub stitute the smooth phrases, 'executing the laws' and 'protecting public property' for coercion, for civil war, we have an im portant concession: that is, that this Government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its real purpose and risk the consequences. No, sir, the policy is to inveigle the people of the North into civil war by making the design in smooth and ambiguous terms.'' (Congressional Globe--36 Con gress, p 1347). Senator Lane was a prophet as the sequel divulged. For "the smooth ambiguous terms, 'executing the laws' and 'pro tecting public property," meant war and nothing less. The North saw it. The South saw it. Under the shrewd manipula tions of Seward and Lincoln they accomplished their purpose. The Republican leaders dreaded the moral effect of the Peace Congress. Therefore they resolved to be represented in that body, that they might be instrumental if possible, in thwarting its pur poses. The following letter of Z. Chandler testifies to this effect: "Washington, February 11, 1861. "My dear Governor: Gen. Bingham and myself telegraphed you on Saturday at the request of Massachusetts and New York, to send delegates to the Peace Congress. They admit that we were right and that they were wrong; that no Republican State should have sent delegates: but they are here, and cannot get away, Ohio, Indiana, Rhode Island are caving in, and there is danger of Illinois; and now they beg us for God's sake, to come to their rescue, and save the Reupblican party from rupture. I RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 303 hope you will send stiffback men or none. The whole thing was gotten up against my judgment and advice and will end in thin smoke. Still I hope as a matter of courtesy to some of your erring brethren that you will send the delegates. Truly your friend. Z. Chandler. "His Excellency, Austin Blain." "P. S.--Some of the manufacturing States think that a fight would be awful. Without a little blood'-letting this Union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush." This letter shows that States which had voted the Republican ticket were "caving in"; that is, were taking part in a plan for peace. This fact brought alarm to Z. Chandler, and J. K. Big- .ham, the Senators of Michigan. They had at first opposed Michigan's participation in the Peace Congress. Bingham had objected because it was "a step toward obtaining that con cession which the imperious slave-power so insolently demands. "They have now changed their opinion; they are alarmed; they are urgent and want stiffback men or none. What scheming, what intrigue, what vigilance, what concern was not theirs! What effort did they not put forth to save Ohio, Indiana, Rhode Island, and Illinois from "caving in!" The North had been the aggressors in every agitation. When the South protested, demanding only simple justice in the name of the compact of the States, she was denounced as "the im perious slave-power"; and her demands were regarded as in solent. The dominant party opposed every measure tending to compromise or pacification. They sought neither compromise nor pacification. They treated with levity all proseptcts of war, declaring "The Union would not be worth a rush" without a little blood-letting. Twenty-one States, fourteen of them Northern had signified their intention of being represented in the Peace Congress. This was cause for alarm. Besides the Congress was called at the suggestion of Virginia, a Southern State. To them this fact had a meaning. It deepened their concern. It called forth their shrewdest scheming, and their best efforts to defeat the purpose of that Congress. Never was purpose more laudable:-- Peace And a Reunited Country. The hour was that of ex- 304 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH treme peril. Was ever purpose more timely, more noble, more patriotic?. A great crisis was at hand, and those whose duty it was to have correctly interpreted its nature, treated it as a mere trifle. War clouds dark and threatening were looming on the political sky. Yet they spoke of "a little blood-letting" as a much needed blessing, and then ruthlessly opened the fountains of the great deep, and the rivers of blood flowed down our valleys. Standing on the brink of the terrible crisis, they said we will collect a little "revenue," and then by the surpris ing result justified themselves in emptying the Governmental treasury of billions of revenue. They said we will "enforce the law," and then in self-justification violated every law in both the moral and civil code. CHAPTER XXH. LINCOLNS FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS. This address is most remarkable. Professing to be Consti tutional, it rejects the voice of the only authority qualified to speak for that instrument. Representing the Constitution as ambiguous, it adopts its own construction. Professing to be conciliatory, it declares its policy to be that of coercion. Ten der and pathetic in its appeals to the Northern masses, to the South it is the threatening voice of the autocrat. All men are human. No human is perfect. Lincoln was hu man and therefore imperfect. All mankind are more or less ambitious. The character of the ambition of each depends upon his environment, and opportunities and to a great extent upon the stamina of the man himself. When Abraham Lincoln, on the 12th of January, 1848, speaking in the House of Congress, said: "Any people anywhere have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government and to form a new one that suits them better," the presidency was not in sight. But the inborn ambition was his. It had elevated him from the ."anks of the ordinary to that of an honorable representative in Con gress. Twelve years later it was very different. In the meantime he had measured swords with the great Douglas on no less than twenty-one different platforms; and had won distinction as a debater. Then it was the presidency loomed portentious before his eyes. Then it was that weak human nature was put to the test, and ambition triumphed. AIT ambition is more or less sel fish, more or less unjust, more or less cruel. Its inordinate de sires increase in proportion to the greatness and dignity and majesty of the position sought. The opportunity to be num bered among the great rulers of the world too often renders the aspirant ruthless as to the use of means. When finally suc cess has crowned the ambitious, the means are too frequent ly overlooked and forgotten; especially is this true when great prosperity follows in the wake of triumphant ambition. Napoleon, in spite of his inordinate ambition, in spite of all the blood through which he waded, is today ranked among the 306 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH truly great because of his achievements. So too Lincoln, in spite of his defiance of the Constitution--in spite of all the fra tricidal blood that made red our hills and valleys from Gettys burg to Ocean Pond, is ranked amiong the illustrious great, be cause he succeeded; and his success was followed by unrivaled prosperity. As success did not make Napoleon right, so suc cess did riot make Lincoln right As Napoleon would have been condemned to infamy had he failed, so failure would have con signed Lincoln to condemnation. Wrong often overcomes right But "truth crushed to earth will rise again." When Christ hung on the tree all the world thought his great life a failure; but today "the ages circle around the cross." As an introduction and a background to our criticism of this first inaugural address of Lincoln we record the testimony of a few very distinguihsed and very creditable witnesses--than whom there are no better. Madison, the father of the Consti tution testified that the thirteen original States were "thirteen Sovereignties." Hamilton the rock-ribbed Centralist of the Phil adelphia Convention, said, "The Attributes of sovereignty are now enjoyed by every State in the Union." Benjamin Frank lin, the great diplomat, said in advocacy of the equality of suf frage in the Senate, that he did it, "as the means of securing the sovereignty of the individual States." John Wilson, an other strong centralist of the Constitutoinal Convention, said, "The thirteen States are thirteen sovereignties." Gouverneur Morris, the centralist of the same Convention, testified that "the Constitution is a compact;" and "each State enjoys Sovereign power." Roger Sherman declared that "the Government was made by a number of sovereign States." Oliver Ellsworth, called the thirteen States, "thirteen sovereign bodies." Daniel Webster declared "the States are Nations." Who are these witnesses? They were all except Webster no less than the ablest and most illustrious members of the Phila delphia Convention that framed, in 1787, the immortal docu ment known as the great American Constitution. A majority of them, in that Convention, advocated a consolidated Govern ment. They failed in their purpose. But loyal to the work of that Convention, they declared, in honest terms, the true nature RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 307 of the compact, and of the States that made it Are not such witnesses most impartial, and hence most competent? The reader will recall that in the chapter just preceding this, we have called to the stand another array of most competent witnesses--all contemporary with Lincoln. They were in turn disappointed when Lincoln declared his policy, which, however "disguised," they knew to be the policy of coercion. The testi mony of all these was that of the framers of the Constitution: viz: The States were sovereignties and "the right of secession did exist." In still another chapter we have shown that the Federal Gov ernment itself actually taught the right of a State to secede for at least a decade and a half at West Point. Notwithstanding this great array of most competent witnesses, reaching from the '60's back to the very Convention that fram ed the Constitution, we find Lincoln, in this first inaugural ad dress, arrayed against them all--all this galaxy of superb states men. What competent authority has ever proclaimed Lincoln a great and profound constitutional expounder? The Nation had scores of Statesmen in his day who excelled him as expound ers of the Constitution. Had a Webster or a Douglas been president in 1861, there would have been no secession--no war. With this introduction we will hear Lincoln in his first in augural: "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is. perpetual." The term "universal law" is very indefinite. It may mean all law. Perhaps he meant to include " a higher law" as if "a higher law" existed then that did not exist when the Constitution was framed. Perhaps he meant to include also "a common law" as if a common law existed then which did not exist at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Perhaps he meant to include also an "unwritten Constitution," as if un written constitutions might not be numbered by the billions and sextlllions. Yet he couples this mysterious "universal law" with our Constitution. For what? To confound? Perhaps, to give strength and clearness to this truism, viz: "Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Govern- 308 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH ment and the Union will endure forever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the in strument itself." This true utterance is all that the South ever demanded. It was Lincoln's forte to introduce these self-evident catch sen tences to inveigle the masses. In this consisted his power as a debater. Observe that this truism follows that very abstruse proposition, "I hold in contemplation of universal law," etc. He did not prove the abstruse proposition. But he rendered it most effective by the truism that followed. The one constant and persistant demand of the entire South was that the Government should "execute all the express pro visions of the Constitution, just as it had done in the days of Washington, Madison, Jefferson and others. This would have banished every thought of secession. This would have satisfied the South. According to this truism the South should have been satisfied with nothing less. The substance of every speech of every Senator, and of every Representative from the South in 1S(JO-(>1, was "Give us what the Supreme Court declares is ours, and all questions between us will settle themselves." It is in order to ask here, is not a decision of the Supreme Court an "express provision of the Government?'' Does not the Constitution so declare? Is any other "provision of the Government" more definitely and more authoritatively expressed Yet, who does not know that Lincoln was elected president on a platform confessedly antagonistic to this Court's decision ? Who so ignorant as not to know this first inaugural address was also antagonistic to the decision of this very Court? All know our reference is to the decision of the Court in the Dred Scott case. What is the conclusion of this matter? Here we have Lin coln stating a most important fact, and yet violating it in the very breath that gave it utterance. Shall we say it? He goes further. He declares in the most solemn manner that he has an "oath registered in Heaven" to comply with "the express provisions of the Government." Yet, he turns his back upon the Constitution, the one compact of the States, as revealed to him in the light of a decision of the Supreme Court. This RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 309 is the testimony of the facts. All history knows it No man can dispute it The time will come when all sections of this great American Republic will so declare it; and too, all the en lightened world will so pronounce it. This same inaugural address next declares: "Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of a contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peacefully unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to the contract may break it so to speak; but does it not require all to rescind it?" Madison and Hamilton and other illustrious contemporaries of the framing of the Constitu tion have answered "no." As we have seen Webster also an swered "no." There is also one great fact of history which says "no," with no uncertain sound. That fact is, it was act ually "dissolved by less than all" in 1788. What a refutation of Lincoln's declaration is this! Yet, this is one of the mistatements that electrified and unified* the North against the South in 1861. Not only was the compact of 1778 rescinded by less than all but a new one was formed in which the express right of a State to withdraw from the Union was sanctioned by all. It is again the strong testimony of fact that New York, and Virginia and Rhode Island incorporated this right in their ordinances of rat ification. Why did not the ten States enter protest against the ratifying ordinances of these three States? Because they were a unit in the belief that the Constitution already clearly granted this right. It is absolutely assured that no State objected to the admission of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island because of this express provision. It follows therefore, that this "ex press provision" of the three States only emphasized what all the States to the "Compact knew to be an undeniable right of each State. Thus is written on the very face of the contract the consent of all for at least three States to "rescind it." Therefore if "the consent of all" was required for "less than all to rescind it" was not the consent of all here given? Lincoln next assumes that he has sustained his position as above set forth, and adds: "The Union is much older than the 310 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH Constitution. It was formed, in fact by the articles of associa tion in 1774. It was matured, and continued by the Declara tion of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual by the Articles of 1778. And finally, in 1788, one of the declared objects for ordaining and estab lishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union." Here we are told in plain words that "the Union is much older than the Constitution;" and that "it was formed in 1774." The facts declare there was no union of States formed in 1774, un less he means a Union of friendly relations. If he means this his language is ambiguous and hence deceptive. But what are the facts? It was in 1774 that the famous Bos ton Port Bill was passed by the British Parliament. At the same time the charter of the Massachusetts Colony was changed without that Colony's consent. Then it was general alarm spread throughout all the colonies; and the cry went forth, "The Cause of Boston is the cause of all." Virginia, the Old Domin ion, appealed to all the colonies to meet in Convention in Phil adelphia on the oth of September, 1774. With one exception all the colonies met in Philadelphia on that day. They met as Colonies, not as States, The object of the convention is given in Elliott's Debates, Vol. 1, p. 42, et sequens. According to this high authoriy the powers conferred on the delegates from Virginia were, "to pro cure redress for the much injured Province of Maassachusetts Bay, to secure British America from the ravage and ruin of arbitrary taxes, and speedily procure the return of that harmony and Union so beneficial to the whole Empire, and so ardently desired by all British America." Clearly the object was not to form a Union; nor was a' Union formed. The powers conferred on the delegates of Maryland were, "To attend a general Congress to assist one plan of conduct operating on the commercial connection of the' colonies with the mother country for the relief of Boston and the preserva tion of American liberty." The powers conferred on the delegates of South Carolina were as follows: "To consider the acts lately passed and bills. RICHAEDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 311 pending in Parliament with regard to the Port of Boston and Colony of Massachusetts Bay; which acts and bills^jn the pre cedent and consequence, affect the whole continent of"America," Similar powers were conferred on all the delegates of all the twelve colonies represented in this convention of 1774. It will be seen that the thirteen colonies were called "colonies" in the instructions given the delegates to this convention. Hence the Union of 1774 was a Union of colonies--this and no more. Plainly the object of this union was "to procure redress for the "much injured Province of Msasachusetts Bay." If still col onies, recognizing and acknowledging their allegiance to Great Britain, how could it be claimed that they had now formed a "Union of States? It is absurd. But if there should yet be a lingering doubt in the mind of the most skeptical let us remove that doubt by quoting from Judge Story, good Northern authority, Vol. 1, Book 2, chap. 1. giving facts which place the question beynod the shadow of doubt. Judge Story says, "New Hampshire, in December 1775, formed a Government of her own which was manifestly in tended to be temporary, 'during,' as they then said, 'the unhappy and unnatural contest with Great Britain;'" that "Virginia on the 29 of June, 1776, by a Convention of delegates declared 'the Government of this colony as formerly exercised by Great Brit ain is totally dissolved;'" that South Carolina, as a colony, did the same thing in 1776," not giving the month; that New Jersey, as a colony, did likewise on the 2nd of July, 1776. In all the cases of the action of the Colonies Judge Story testifies that each colony expressly declared for itself that its action "should be void upon a reconciliation with Great Britain," show ing most conconclusively, and most clearly, that as late as the 2nd of July 1776, the colonies had not yet despaired of reconcil iation, with the mother country. Is it supposed that the Colon ies formed a union of States while they hoped for reconcilia tion with Great Britain? Did Lincoln know history? What now were the results of the deliberations of the first Convention of the Colonies in 1774? They formally declared the indefensible rights of all the colonies. They recommended to the colonies a policy to be adopted by each if one or more 312 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH of them should suffer wrong by the mother country, as did the colony of Massachusetts Bay. This convention, after a few minor details, was dissolved with the recommendation that all the colonies meet again of the 10th of May 1775. Thus ended the first convention, or Congress of the Colonies, not States, President Lincoln to the contrary, notwithstanding. In compliance with this recommendation all of the thirteen colonies convened by deputies on the 10th of May 1775. It was through this convention that the first union of the States was formed. Nor was this Union formed till after they had, by the Declaration of Independence, declared the colonies no long er such, but each a free and independent State. And not then did they form a political Union of the States till 1777, during the war of flie Revolution, in which all the States were strug gling for separate independence from the dominion of Eng land. This proposed union of 1777 was not ratified by the States till 1778; and then by only eleven of the thirteen. The two States not yet ratifying it were Delaware and Maryland, the former ratifying it in February 1779, and the latter in March 1781. Moreover Maryland, had instructed her delegates to this conven tion to vote against all the propositions of Virginia and "to seek reconciliation with Great Britain." Virginia had thus instruct ed her delegates: "Resolved, unanimously, that the delegates appointed to represent this colony in general Congress be in structed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States, absolved from all allegi ance to, or dependence upon the Crown of Parliament or Great Britain: and that they give the assent of this colony to such declaration and to whatever measure may be thought proper and necessary by Congress, for forming foreign alliances, and a Confederation of the Colonies at such time and in the manner as to them shall seem best. Provided that the power of form ing Government for, and the regulation of the internal concerns of each colony be left to the respective colonial legislatures." This resolution was adopted on the loth of May 1775, at Williamsburg. The State of Maryland entered this Congress hop ing and working for reconciliation with England. Hence it re- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 315 quired time, labor and discussion to induce her to ratify the Con stitution. It is universally conceded that no union was established till the Constitution, the basis of the Union, was ratified. On the 9th of July, 1778, the delegates of all the States had signed in ratification except New Jersey and Delaware and Maryland. Although Maryland in common with the other twelve States had declared herself a free and independent State, she did not ratify the Articles of Confederation till the 1st of March, 1781, almost five years after her declaration of independence. This particular Constitution required ratification by all the States be fore it became effective. Therefore it was not effective till the 1st of March 1781. Then, and not till then, was Congress en abled to form foreign alliances in the name of the United thir teen States, known as the first Confederation. How "much old er" then was "the Union than the Constitution" on which it was based ? As for the Declaration of Independence it was just what it claimed to be--no more, no less, viz: "That these United Col onies (not States) are, and of right ought to be, free and in dependent States; and that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and all political connection between them, and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be totally dis solved." If there is a declaration of a permanent political Union of the States in these resolutions history does not know it; and no man has ever found it. On the contrary %ve have just seen that Maryland refused to ratify the compact for nearly five years after having declared herself a "free and independent" State. Therefore while these resolutions formed a very important part in the proceedings of that Convention they did not constitute the thirteen Colonies that many States united under one com pact. They were a great step toward a Union but not the Un ion. They were thirteen Colonies on the 7th of June, 1776, when these resolutions were introduced by Richard Henry Lee ac cording to the instructions of the Colony of Virginia. They were thirteen Colonies till the 4th of Jul,y 1776, when the res olutions were adopted. That same 4th of July, 1776, was the birthday of thirteen "free and independent States--States in 314 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH the same sense as Great Britain was "a State;" for in the same sentence in which they declare themselves States they say," and the State of Great Britain," thus defining what they meant by a State. If Great Britain was sovereign, so were they. If Great Britain had the right to will, to decide, to decree, and to act, so had they. If Great Britain could form an alliances, so could they. In short whatever Great Britain could do as a Sovereign State they could do. Yes, "the then thirteen States plighted their faith and engaged that it (Union of 1778-81) should be perpetual by the Articles of Confederation in 1778." As free and independent States, or Nations, or Sovereigns, they were now qualified to form alli ances with each other. It was no uncommon form for Nations or States, in forming treaties or leagues, to declrae them to be "forever" or perpetual. In accordance with this form these thirteen States in forming their league, or compact, declared it to be "perpetual." But was it "perpetual?" The power that makes can unmake. "Unum quoque dissolutor so mode quo colligatur." - The very fact that a State, or Nation, has the power to treat with another State, or Nation, is mathematically conclusive evidence that it has the power to annul the treaty. The thirteen States had the power to form a compact or treaty in 1778, for they exercised it. Therefore in 1787 they had the power to annul this treaty, and they exercised it unmolested by any external force. They did it as sovereigns, one at a time. They did it too "by less than all." All know that "one of the declared objects of ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Un ion;" and therefore not the identical Union of 1778. It was composed of the same States, free, independent and sovereign, cherishing the same jealousy as to their reserved rights. It was therefore a Union of the same States, but not the Union of the identical Government, because the compact, or the basis of the Union, was different. The States had conferred enlarged pow ers on their agent, the Federal Government. The older Gov ernment required the sanction of all the States to form a Union; the new required only nine. The other Government was not RICHABDSONS DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 315 formed till all had ratified it. The new government was actual ly formed by eleven States, leaving North Carolina and Rhode Island outside as the remnant of the older Union. With this action of the eleven States what became of the per petual union of 1778 under the clause which provided, that: "The Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union (be perpetual) nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State?" The Contract of 1778 was broken and broken without the con sent of North Carolina and Rhode Island. Without their con sent a new Government was formed, leaving them out, a small remnant of the Union of 1778. What now becomes of Lincoln's argument that when "an as sociation of States is made by contract merely" "it can not be unmade by less than all of the parties to it?" The very history of the Confederation annihilates his logic. But faulty as it was the masses of the North received it as genuine in all faith. Thus error disguised as truth marshaled more than two and one-half millions of men against a few hundred thousand Constitution-- loving patriots, and plundered and burned their homes, and slaughtered thousands of their bravest heroes--heroes who would have died at any time in defense of the Constitution as construed by Hamilton and Madison and Washington and their com patriots. From these incontrovertable facts, just given, the conclusion is inevitable that Mr. Lincoln's deduction from the above prem ises of his are erroneous and therefore wrong. Already the first half century since the war has declared he was wrong as to facts and logic. Each decade following will strengthen this declaration. When the first full century since the great war shall have looked back upon the unobscured truth this utter ance of Lincoln will have been declared revolutionary, and an undisputed declaration of war: viz: "I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Consti- 316 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH tution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Un ion be faithfully executed in all the States." On the 19th day of May, 1860, a great National political con vention assembled in Baltimore, and nominated John Bell of Tennessee for president, and Edward Everett of Massachusetts as vice-president. That party declared it to be, "both the part of patriotism and duty to recognize no political principle other than the Constitution of the country, the Union of the States and the enforcement of the laws," because another gfreat politi cal party was in the field with a platform against the Constitu tion. At'the head of this party stood Abraham Lincoln. This is the man that declares he is enjoined by the constitution to en force "the laws of the Union" "in all the States" without naming the enjoining clause in that instrument. Is it any wonder that his Construction was at variance with that of three-fourths of a century: with that of the best legal talent of his day? Is it any wonder the South rejected his construction? Upon what ground could Mr. Lincoln say, "I trust this will not be a menace ?" Vast -meetings of citizens throughout all the North declared it was not only a menace, but war. All in telligent men knew its full meaning. To say that Lincoln him self did not know it, would be to impeach his intelligence. It is well known that Lincoln was not wanting in intellect. If President Lincoln had taken his own advice there would have been no disunion--no war, viz.: "Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our National fabric with all its benefits, its memories, its hopes, would it not be wise to as certain why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step when there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you while the certain ills you fly to--are greater than all. the real ones you fly from --will you risk the commission of so great a mistake?" Pause here before these remarkable utterances--remarkable for their aptness to pacify and win the North while equally adapted to repulse the South. Consider who were responsible for the conditions then exist ing. Was it not the party then in power? Was it not that party, sectional to the last man in its ranks? From whose lips RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 317 fell these utterances? Did they not fall from the lips of that party's chief? Do not these facts convince us that the Republi can Party was the prime cause for the disturbed conditions of the Sixties? Did they not use slavery as the justifying occa sion? And had not the North been proslavery for more than a full century? Do we ever read of any large slave-holder there freeing his slaves voluntarily? Did not the census of 1860 show that the number of free negroes in the North and South were about equally divided? Has this fact no tongue? Does it not declare that the North sold her slaves to the Southern planters? Was slavery less wrong in the sight of Heaven than the full purse received in exchange for slaves? If the institu tion was "a sin and a curse" did not the North share equally with the South in that "sin and curse?" Upon what ground of justice did Lincoln and his party lift holy hands to high Heaven and assume supreme innocence as to this institution in 1860-61 ? What boldness, what affront, what deception was theirs? How dared they to put on the garb of innocence and register "an oath in Heaven" that it was their duty and their legal right to lecture, to threaten, to abuse, to curse, to plunder, to destroy, and to murder the inhabitants of the South? Does the justice of Heaven accommodate itself to the designs of a political party without regard to the responsibilities of that party? If not how did President Lincoln and his party recon cile the fact of their open rebellion against the Third Great Fundamental Department of the Government, as expressed in their platform and repeated in this inaugural address? Do not all men know that the Dred Scott decision declared the Re publican Party1 platform unconstitutional? Do not all know that Lincoln derided that decision as "a sort of decision;" that "it was made by a bare majority?" Do not all know that "bare majority" was "7 to 2?" How did Mr. Lincoln reconcile his two oaths, the one registered in Washington and the other "in Heaven?" The more important question is, how did he recon cile his rebellion against the Supreme Court decision and his oath to support the Constitution? Shall we refrain to ask how he reconciled his express enmity to the Constitution and his oath 318 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF 'EEE SOUTH to obey the Constitution? Is not antagonism to the Supreme Court's decision also antagonism to the Constitution? Nothing protects error so well as being found in company with fact. Hence the next utterance of this remarkable address is a most important fact--a fact upon which all issues hang, viz: "All profess to be content in the Union, if all the Constitutional rights can be maintained." This is a universal proposition. Hence it includes the South. It was the declaration heard in every Southern home, in every Southern valley, on every Southera hill-top, and upon every Southern navigable stream through out all that disturbed section. Since the North also professed the same thing was there not strong ground for reconciliation? Why then was reconciliation denied ? Was it the fault of the South? Had she not proposed terms of reconciliation? Had not all of them been rejected by the North? Were not commis sioners from the South in Washington at this very time in the interest of peace? Were they not made to hope in vain, only to be denied? Did not the "Peace Conference" originate in the South ? Were not all its propositions turned down by the vic torious party? The next utterance in this address is a truism, viz: "But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically ap plicable to every question which may occur in practical admin istration." Why this truism? May it not be intended as a background for these questions and answers of his own: "Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by National or State author ity?_ The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territor ies? The Constitution does not expressly say." We have heavily italicized these questions and answers that the very italicizing may suggest the just criticism. Both the ques tions and answers are pregnant with inherent weakness. We hesitate to add words of our own to the criticism of the italics. We hesitate out of respect for a great name--a name revered and honored throughout the civilized world. Nor would we criti cize them further but for the fact that other great names, equally as renowned and revered, are involved in the correct answers RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 319 to these questions. Not only the honor and integrity of great names are involved but the honor and integrity of a great section of enlightened people are involved also. What school boy does not know when "the Constitution does not expressly say" it means the States? Who so ignorant as not to know that the Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to do anything except what it expressly says it can do? We are not criticizing Mr. Lincoln. He is criticizing him self by his questions and answers. Who has lived up to the age of maturity in this free and enlightened Republic of ours, and has read so little as not to know the Supreme Court, in 1857, had answered in words as plain as it could use, the question: "May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories?" It is with sincere regret that we are compelled by his own official words to view the great Lincoln in such a light Shall we judge from this inaugural address that this is his normal state of mind on slavery? All know, too, that the same Supreme Court at the same time in 1857, answered with equal clearness Mr. Lincoln's third ques tion, viz: "Must Congress protect slavery in the Territor ies " Were these questions and answers of Mr. Lincoln's due to ig norance? Had he not criticized and derided that decision in his famous Cooper Institute Speech? They were not due to ignorance. Then what? When a full century from the day of their utterance shall have been ushered in as the impartial judge, the true motive of these questions and answer will have been unmasked without mercy or commisseration. Francis Newton Thorpe, and various other Northern His torian's, realizing the weakness of Mr. Lincoln's position, have attempted to defend him, not by an appeal to the Constitution, but by a so-called "higher law." They forget that no law, how ever sacred, can justly be called "a higher law" which sanc tions the violation of a consecrated oath. It ceases to be "a higher law" the moment it sanctions the violation of a sacred oath. Every officer, high or low, of the United States Govern ment swears fealty to the Constitution, the one binding tie of all the States. How absurd such an appeal! 320 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH From the foregoing facts it follows that Lincoln's construc tion of the silence of the Constitution is altogether wrong. There fore all his conclusions based on these false constructions are wrong. One of them is this: "If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease"--another plain declaration of war without constitutional authority. In the name of the great South section, true to every word of the Constitution, we repeat that had the plain meaning of the Constitution prevailed as construed by the Supreme Court and by the North and South before the entrance of the Republican Party on the scene, there would have been no secession in 186061 on the part of the South. Has not the South by high North ern authorities been styled "Eighteenth Century reactionists?" What is the meaning of this accusation ? Is not the plain mean ing this: that the South in the 60's held the views entertained by the able and illustrious statesmen who framed the Constitu tion and their contemporary statesmen? Was this a crime? If so, was it a crime of such magnitude as to invite the horrors of war? If this was a crime the South of the 60's was guilty with Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and the two Adamses and all that line of great characters whose virtues and statesmanship have enriched the world. What a galaxy of great names gather about the South of the 60's, and say to her, "We share your guilt!" Who now doubts the South's sincerity in the Sixties? Who? Who doubts her sincere desire for peace? Did she not exhaust every honorable means to secure it? Was it not a Southern State that suggested "the Peace Congress?" Was it not a Southern man that introduced the famous Crittenden resolu tions? Was it not Southern representatives who voted for them in Congress? Did not the South declare herself ready to adopt any honorable proposition for peace? What then did Lincoln mean when he said, "In your hands, my dissatisfied country men, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war?" Did it not mean "There is no way for you to avoid civil war ex cept by submission to unconstitutional terms?. Had not a num- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 321 ber of Southern States already seceded? Did he not know their manhood and their new allegiance now forbade submis sion? Therefore he meant war, and the sequel shows he meant war. CHAPTER XXIII. . WHO CAUSED THE WAR? In the last chapter we saw that the thirteen original Colonies declared themselves "States in the same sense that Great Brit ain is a State." That meant they were sovereignties in the full sense. Therfore the compact they formed was one of sover eign States. We have also given in the same chapter Ney's legal maxim: "Every thing is dissolved by the same means it is constituted." To this we add the same well established legal truth as given by Broom in his legal maxims, p. 407, in these words: "Nothing is so consonant to natural equity as that every contract should be dissolved by the same means that rendered it binding." The thirteen original States formed a compact among them selves by adopting ordinances ratifying the same Constitution, each in its own way, and at its own time and place. Thus they rendered the common Constitution "binding." In the same way, or "by the same means" the eleven seceding States of the South in 1860-61 "Dissolved" this compact. They therefore acted within their legal rights and the United States Government had no more right to coerce them than she would have to coerce England for dissolving a compact between her and England. If we take the definition of a State as given by the thirteen origi nal States, there is no evading the conclusion. Their definition is the only true one since they Constituted the States. There fore the conclusion is inevitable. If then it is inevitably true that the eleven Southern States in 1860-61, had the legal and natural right to dissolve the com pact just as they formed it; and at the same time expressed a desire that their dissolution should be peaceful, who caused the war? They not only "dissolved" the Union "by the same means by which they constituted it," but they also sought by all honor able means to make their dissolution a peaceful one. This hon est desire they declared both by words and acts. They imme diately sent commissioners to Washington in the interest of. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 323 peace and goodwill. These commissioners were encouraged to hope, only to be deceived. Who then caused the war? Not only did their words and acts most emphatically declare for a peaceful separation, but their unpreparedness for war most earnestly proclaimed their desires for peace. They were an ag ricultural people, inexperienced as to war. They were without arms and the means of manufacturing them. In short they were without all the essentials of war except brave hearts and a conviction of right. Would such a people, under such circum stances, deliberately inaugurate war? Who then caused the war? The real cause of the war lay in the violation of the Consti tution. It is confessed that our political organization was more or less complex. But its complexity was not at fault. It was its plain precepts that were violated. 1. The assumption by the dominant party that the silence of the Constitution conferred authority upon the Federal Govern ment was a plain violation of the Constitution. No reputable historian, North or South, denies this. Yet the silence of the Constitution was the main basis upon which Lincoln, in his in augural, built his doctrine of restriction and coercion. But re striction and coercion were unconstitutional. Who caused the war? 2. Every Compromise was a violation of the Constitution. This cannot be denied. Each compromise was the result of ag gression, and it is an indisputable fact of history that all aggres sion came from the North. Aggression, according to Webster, means "the first attack." Every "first attack" upon the Consti tution was made by the North, and the South, in consenting to a compromise through her love for the Union, also became vio lators of that instrument in a reluctant sense. On the part of the South it was a reluctant yielding of her rights to secure peace. On the part of the North it was pure and simple aggres sion to prevent the extension of slave territory. The South can truthfully assert that in no other way did she ever violate the Constitution. This is her proud boast: her impregnable de fense against the false charges that she caused the war. 324 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 3. . The refusal to obey the universally acknowledged decision of the Supreme Court was another and indisputable violation of the Constitution. All know that Lincoln rebelled against this de cision in his celebrated Cooper Institute Speech; that he next led a great political party in rebellion against it; that he was elected president as an avowed enemy against it; that as such he was inaugurated president; and that as president his declared policy was against it. At first it was Lincoln and the Republi can party who opposed the decision of this Court. After that subtle deceptive inaugural address to which we have referred, it was Lincoln, the Republican party and a practically united North. Who, then, caused the war? 4. The Constitution was violated--yea more, it was supplant ed, it was rendered obsolete--by a false "higher law," a "false common law;" and a false ''unwritten Constitution," etc. As for the South, she knew but one Constitution; the one com mon to all the States alike: the one ratified by all the States in the same manner,--by separate State Conventions; the one Con stitution to which all the States alike had sworn eternal fidelity. The South knew of "a higher law" that existed when Adam ind Eve walked together in the Garden of Eden; "a higher law" that existed in all succeeding ages; "a higher law" %vritten on the tablets of human hearts, rendering more sacred and more binding the oaths of the States and of their citizens, to obey its God-given precepts; "a higher law" that uses human statutes and human governments, as "ordained of God," to advance and strengthen its influence and power among men ; a higher law that was never designed by its divine author to supplant and render obsolete human statutes, human institutions and human govern ments : "a higher law" that gives aid and strength to human laws, but never supplants them. The South knew of "a common law" a rule of action "immemorially received and recognized by judicial tribunals;" a common law "which derives its authority from long usage, or established custom," not from the supposed change of convic tions of men,--not from "the ignorance of foreigners" as to our Federal Constitution; but a common law that reaches back "be yond the memory of man," and was threefore in full force when RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 325 our fathers wrote the Constitution and which aided them in framing that "most wonderful" political document. This com mon law did not then render the Constitution obsolete. It es tablished it. What credence then are we to give to the very re markable claim that it changed its nature in 1860-61, and ren dered the Constitution obsolete ? It was not the "Common Law," unchangeable by its very nature and definition, that then render ed our Constitution obsolete, and inaugurated what our own Su preme Court has pronounced to be the greatest "Civil War" of the world; but a so-called false common law, based on a pre sumed, not a verified, change of human opinions as to the real chajacter of our Republican form of Government: a so-called common law was not in the least sense common, but sectional to the core. Who then caused the war? As to an "Unwritten Constitution" the South was in absolute ignorance of it till its existence was proclaimed and it was de fined by Francis Newton Thorpe in "The Civil War from a Northern standpoint" Was it treason to disobey a Constitu tion of which one had never heard? This was the false charge made in the 'fiO's. Treason is rebellion against the Constitution that represents the Government it established. That Constitu tion,--that Government,--was the one formed in Philadelphia in 1787. To this Constitution all history in unbroken evidence attests the fidelity of the South. Even the North admits this in calling the South of the Sixties ''Eighteenth Century reac tionists." Who then caused the war? The charge made to the world by the United States Govern ment that the Southern States in their State conventions, and in their general Convention at Montgomery, were ''Conspirators against the principles of the United States Government," was a declaration of war. For who has ever heard of a bona fide conspiracy against a reputable Government that did not call forth the strong arm of the Government to crush it? If that ch?re. as published to the world, was true the South deserve-'! the avenging hand of war. If it was a false charge the South did not inerit the sword and the torch. The open, frank, earnest, and patriotic manner in which these States had protested against the infringements upon their Con- 326 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH stitutional rights refutes the charge. When all protests had failed, and all efforts at compromise had proved futile, they met in conventions of their own. These Conventions were advertis ed, in advance, to the world; and the objects for which they were called were known of all men. Conspiracy is born in secret, but there were no secrets in any of these Conventions. They had grievances. These they met to discuss and to devise reme dies. Their debates upon the question of secession were able, earnest, and spirited. All the speakers were a unit as to the right of secession, but a large minority, and among them some of the ablest statesmen of the South, did not believe in the policy of secession as the best remedy Strange to say this fact lead Lincoln and his party to believe that the South was divided on the question of the legal right of secession. In the Convention of the States which met at Montgomery there was the same open, manly, frank, and dignified discussion of questions of vital importance pertaining to their common in terest. All their proceedings were published to the world. They concealed nothing. The very Constitution this Convention de vised and submitted to the States for ratification, is a standing refutation of the charge of conspiracy. Of this Constitution the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens speaks in these pertinent words: "The whole document utterly negatives the idea which many have been active in endeavoring to put in the enduring form of history, that the Convention at Montgomery was nothing- but a set of "Conspirators' whose object was the overthrow of the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and the erec tion of a great 'slave oligarchy' instead of the free institutions thereby secured and guaranteed. -This work of the Montgom ery Convention with that of the provisional Government, will ever remain, not only a monument of the widom, forecast, and statesmanship of the men who constituted it, but an everlasting refutation of the charges which have been brought against them. These works together show clearly that their 'only leading ob ject was to sustain, uphold, and perpetuate the fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States." This Constitution was modeled after that of the United States. The preamble to each is substantially the same, almost in the RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 327 identical words. No changes in the entire instrument were made except such as experience had dictated. It stands also as an impregnable bulwark of defense against the often repeated charge that "the Confederacy was founded on slavery," that "its corner-stone was slavery." "Property in slaves, already existing, was recognized and guaranteed, just as it was in the Constitution of the United States." But the "extension of sla very," the cause of great complaint by Lincoln and his party, was more effectually prevented by the Constitution of the Con federacy than by that of the United States, as witnessed by the instruments themselves. In the 9th section of the Constitu tion of the United States are these words: "The migration or im portation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Con gress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importations not ex ceeding ten dollars for each person." From the 9th section of the Confederate Constitution we quote as follows: 1. "The importation of negroes of the Afri can race from any foreign country other than the slave-holding States or Territories of the "United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same." 2. "Congress shall also have the power to prohibit the intro duction of slaves from any State, not a member of, or Terri tory not belonging to this Confederacy." These extracts speak for themselves. That form the Federal Constitution declares the "importation of slaves" shall not be prohibited prior to the year 1808;" and then follow "but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importations, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." What is the meaning of this Butclause? Does it not virtually annul the preceeding clause by further legalizing the importation of slaves? If it does not fur ther legalize the importation of slaves, what is the meaning of the right to impose "a tax or duty on such importations?" The fact cannot be denied that after 1808 Congress still had the pow er to encourage the importation of slaves. 328 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH But what is the voice of the extract from the Confederate Constitution? Its clear-cut meaning is "The importation of negroes" from Africa "is hereby forbidden,"--positively forbid den; and Congress was required to enforce this mandate of the States through their Constitution. This clause gives Congress but one discretion, that of admitting slaves from any State or Territory of the United States; and this one discretion is the language of friendship, not of war. As the charge of "Conspiracy" was a declaration of war, so was that of "insurrection," of "rebellion' 'and of treason. When the speaker and other members of the Burgesses cried "Treason, treason," to the impassioned words of the fiery Henry they knew well the meaning of treason, and so did the bold and impetuous Henry as he finished his sente/ice: "May profit by their exam ple. If this be treason, make the most of it." So too the Colonies knew it meant war when they rebelled against Great Britain: and the seven long years of war were the result. When the cry of "conspiracy," "insurrection," "rebellion," and "trea son" went forth from the White House, all the world knew it meant war, and only war; and the f6ur succeeding years pre sented the bloodiest page of history. Who then caused the war? Let us next consider the attitude of the Confederate States. Perhaps no better evidence can be produced than extracts from the inaugural address of Mr. Davis as President of the Provi sional Government, delivered on the 18th of February, 1SG1. He says, "The cTeclared purpose of the Compact of the Union from which we have withdrawn, was to 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquality, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to our selves and posterity;'" and when in the judgment of the Sov ereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been per verted from the purpose for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peace ful appeal to the ballot-box declared that, so far as they were con cerned, the Government created^ by that compact should cease to exist. In this, they merely asserted a right which the Decla ration of Independency of 177fi, had denned to be inalienable. BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 320 Of the time and occasion for its exercise they, as Sovereigns, were the final judges each of itself. The impartial and enlight ened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our con duct, and He who knows the hearts of men, will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed in the Bills of Rights of States, subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognizes in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purpose of Government. Thus the Sovereign States here represented, proceeded to form this Con federacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a Revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its Government has remained, and the rights of persons and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations, is changed; but this does not necessarily interrupt their interna tional relations." Is there any declaration of war in words like these ? Consider this: "They merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of IT?*!, had declared to be inalienable," that is cannot or should not, be alienated, surrendered or transferred to another." Is the Declaration of Independence good authority? Then who can doubt the correctness of this position? If it can not be doubted, who caused the war? Consider these other words: "He who knows the hearts of men, will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to pre serve the Government of our Fathers in its spirit." History is full of the sacrifices made by the South, and of her efforts to preserve the Union. This assertion can not be challenged. It greets the patriot's eye on every page of the history of the times. Again: "It is an abuse of language that their act has been denominated a Revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its Government has remained, and the rights of persons and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom the}- communicated with foreign powers is changed; 'but this does not necessarily interrupt their interna- 330 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH tional relations." With what dignity of speech does Mr. Davis here meet the charge of Mr. Lincoln that he leads a revolution rfgainst-the Federal Government! The assertion of a revolution "is an abuse of language." "They," the Southern States, have "formed a new alliance" as was their right according to the Declaration of Independence. The United States Government had been their "agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations," but now these States have met and appointed another agent for this purpose. If the Declaration of Inde pendence be true this is not revolution. By it Massachusetts freed her slaves to the surprise of her citizens. For its truth every State in the Union vouches. Then who caused the war? We quote further from this inaugural address: "Sustained by the consciousness that the transition from the former Union to the present Confederacy, has not proceeded from a disregard on our part of just obligations, or any failure to perform any Constitutional duty; moved by no interest or passion to invade the rights of others; anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all the nations, if we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us of having needlessly engaged in it." No bugle note of war is heard in these words: But there is a solemn protestation that the Confederate states have "not proceeded from a disregard of just obligations;" that they have "not failed to perform any Constitutional duty;" that they have not been "moved" by any "interest or passion to invade the rights of others;" and that they are "anxious to cultivate peace and Commerce with all nations." It is also a solemn declara tion that if war is forced upon them, they "may at least expect that posterity will acquit" them of "having needlessly engaged in it." Who then caused the war? Again: "An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing coun try, our true policy is peace and the freest trade which our nec essities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 331 and any manufacturing community such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices." What sound of a war-like spirit is to be found in these words ? Do they not assert, "Our true policy is peace ?" Are they not emphatic in declaring, "There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing community such as the Northeast ern States of the American Union ?" Do they not take for grant ed "that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind of fices?" Who then caused the war? Again: "Through many years of controversy with our late associates, the Northern States, we have vainly endeavored to secure tranquility and to obtain respect for the rights to which we are entitled.. As a necessity, not of choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation..... .If a just perception of mutual 'interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate politi cal career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled." What remotest indication of a threat of war is to be found in these words? In vain we "endeavored to secure tranquility." In vain we attempted to "obtain respect for the rights to which we were entitled." It was from "necessity, not choice," that we "resorted to the remedy of separation." The entire history of the long "controversy" sustains this assertion. Mr. Davis's earnest desire for peace was that of all true Southerners: "If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled." Is the thunder of artillery heard in words like these? Again: "We have changed the Constituent parts, but not the system, of our Government. The Constitution formed by our fathers is that of these Confederate States, in their exposition of it; and in the judicial construction it has received, we have a light which reveals its true meaning." Every syllable, yea every letter, in these words of Davis, breathes of devotion to the Con stitution of our fathers. The South's one great sin in the eyes of Lincoln and his party was her fidelity to that instrument. His tory has piled evidence upon evidence as to this fact till a moun tain of testimony kisses the very skies. The South had no pur- 332 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH pose, no desire, no motive, to make war upon the North. It was a libel upon her common sense, upon her self-interest, upon her normal condition to assert that she wished to commit aggres sion or to do anything wrong whatever to the Northern States or their people. Her only motive in quitting the Union was to preserve for herself "at least the principles of the Constitution." This is why she has been derided by a leading Northern histor ian as "eighteenth century reactionists," that is, eighteenth cen tury constitutionalists. This derision is her proudest appellation. For the principles of the eighteenth century Constitution, '"the eighteenth century reactionists" gave the best blood of their veins. Shut out by b'ockade from all ports of the world, with out war mate-ials and ihe means of manufacturing them, the 18th century Constitutionalists, less than 650,000 strong, suc cessfully opposed for four long years more than 2,600,000 antieighteenth century Constitutionalists with all the powers of wellorganized Government at their back, and went not, then, down beneath the hail of lead and iron, and the keen edge of the Da mascus blade, till death had made their serried columns mere picket lines: and not then till their slaves were proclaimed free and 200.000 of them armed in defense of the North; and not then till plunder and torch had done their most effective work; and not then in abjection, but as heroes invincible still. Conscious of no wrong, but deeply sensible of right, they bent no knee. They stood erect, majestic, sublime, while the shad ows of sorrow gathered about their heroic forms. They knew the meaning of victory upon many hard fought fields. As im mortal victors they knew how to vanquish even defeat. And they did it as no other soldiers have ever done. Too conserva tive to violate the "18th century" Constitution, their conserva tism has snatched victory from defeat, and the world to-dny is looking upon the restored South as the most glorious section of the Union, and soon to be ranked as the best and most pros perous of all the world. CHAPTER XXIV. WHO CAUSED THE WAR? (Continued) Further evidence of the desire of the South for peace is seen in the resolution passed by the Confederate Congress on the 15th day of February, 1861, declaring its sense "that a commis sion of three be appointed by the President-elect, as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the Govern ment of the United States of America, for the purpose of ne gotiating friendly relations between that Government, and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." In accordance with this resolution Mr. Davis appointed the following distinguished citizens of national reputation as that commission of three: John Forsyth of Alabama, Martin T. Crawford of Georgia, and A. B. Roman of Louisiana--all statesmen of acknowledgecl ability. They were clothed with full power to open negotiations, to settle all matters of joint property, such as forts, arsenals, arms or property of any kind, whatever with in the limits of the Confederate States. As soon as Mr. Lincoln had organized his cabinet they ad dressed to \Vm. H. Seward, Secretary of State, the folk-wing communication: "Seven States of the late Federal Union, hav ing in the exercise of the inherent right of every free people to change or reform their political institutions, and through Con ventions of their people, having withdrawn from the United States, and resumed the attribute of Sovereign power delegated to it, have formed a Government of their own. "With a view to a speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of this political separation, upon such terms of amity and good-will as the respective interests, geographical contiguity and future welfare of the two nations may render necessary, the un dersigned are instructed to make to the Government of the Unit ed States overtures for the opening of negotiations, assuring the Government of the United States that the President, Congress and people of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful 334 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH solution of these great questions; that it is neither their interest nor their wish to make any demand which is not grounded in strict justice, nor do any act to injure their late Confeder ates." How was this communication in the interest of peace and good-will received ? Two days after its reception by Mr. Seward an indirect and informal answer was made through Justice Nelson of the United States Supreme Court and Justice Campbell of the same Court to the effect that Mr. Seward had a "strong disposition in favor of peace, and that he was greatly oppressed with a demand of the Commissioners of the Confederate States for a reply to their letter; and that he desired to avoid making any reply at that time." This evasive answer was made to Judge Nelson, and by him to Judge Campbell, who on receiving the information, without consulting the commissioners, at once in terviewed Mr. Seward with the hope that he might be instrumen tal in bringing about a peaceful adjustment of all questions at issue. On the evening of the same day Judge Campbell handed to the Commissioners in writing the following: "I feel entire confidence that Fort Sumter will be evacuated within the next ten days. And this measure is felt as imposing great responsibility on the administration. I feel entire confi dence that no measure changing the existing Status, prejudici al to the Southern Confederate States, is at present contem plated. I feel an entire confidence that an immediate demand for an answer to the communication of the commissioners will be productive of evil, and not of good. I do not believe that it ought at this time to be pressed." Could an appeal have been stronger? Could it have come through a more trust-worthy and more conciliatory medium? Had not Mr. Seward also said to Judge Campbell that "there was no design to reinforce Fort Sumter?"--that "it would be evacuated in less than ten days?" and that "it would be evacuat ed before a letter could go from Washington to Montgomery?" He knew Judge Campbell would report this information to the commissioners. He knew it would allay their suspicions. For this reason thev did not demand an immediate answer, but re- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 335 ported their information to President Davis, and he to Beauregard. When the specified time had passed Fort Sumter was still not evacuated. Not only this, but Major Anderson was known to be making repairs. The facts were telegraphed to the Commis sioners. Judge Campbell again interviewed Seward. Again he was assured "that the failure to evacuate Sumter was not the result of bad faith, but was attributable to causes consistent with the intention to fulfil the engagement, and that as regards Fort Pickens, in Florida, notice would be given of any design to alter the existing status there." On the 7th day of April 1861, the Relief Squadron left New York, causing general alarm. Judge Campbell then "addressed a letter to Mr. Seward, asking "if the assurance he had given were well or ill founded?" Mr. Seward replied, "Faith as to Fort Sumter fully kept--wait and see." This Relief Squadron was then on its way to Charleston with instructions to provision and reinforce Fort Sumter, "peaceably," if permitted, "otherwise by force." Here was deception. Here was treachery. Here was false hood. Here was scheming by Seward, and Lincoln, the leading instruments in causing the then existing conditions. It was against human nature for them to be impartial actors in the great drama of these exciting times. The very existence of another Confederacy was a severe and most solemn rebuke to them and their allies. They had gone too far beyond Consti tutional limits to retreat. They had said too much to retract. Hence they practiced this most flagrant deception. They used Judge Nelson of New York and Judge Campbell of Alabama, members of the United States Supreme Court, as mediums of in tercourse with the commissioners to allay all suspicion. At the same time they were energetically plotting for an advantage in the war they had all the time determined to inaugurate:--yea, in the war they then and there declared by their conduct to be al ready inaugurated. Why was this information deferred till the ominous hour when the Relief Squadron was approaching the harbor of Charleston? That was the pregnant hour--the hour of surprise. Upon it all 3S6 RICHARDSON'S 1'KFENSE OF THE SOUTH depended. For the Consummation of this hour falsehood, treach ery and deception, disguised in the sacred ermine of the judiciary, personated truth, the peerless gem of virtues. For the consum mation of this hour secret counsels were held and secret plans inaugurated. For the consummation of this hour Fort Sumter was not evacuated after many unqualified affirmations, that it would be. For the consummation of this hour emmisaries with false tongues were sent to Charleston and Fort Sumter, and played well their part in the drama of deception. It was the hour designated by the Washington authorities in which to force the South to fire on the flag of the Union. To this every false promise, every intrigue, every insult, and every threat pointed. It was doubtless desirable to reinforce Fort Sumter, but that was not the paramount desire. We have seen that the accusation of treason, rebellion, meant war. We have heard the notes of war in Lincoln's inaugural address. We have seen that Lincoln and Seward had already declared war by their treatment of the Peace Commissioners. We have seen the red flag of war floating from all the facts. It was necessary, there fore, that the Northern heart should be fired, and the Northern people united. What would do this so effectively as the South's firing on the flag? Therefore the Relief Squadron was secretly sent on its mission of war, and its object made known to Gov ernor Pickens and Beauregard at the hour of its approach. The plot was well laid, and faultlessly executed. The flag was fired on. Fort Sumter surrendered. The Northern heart was fired. The North was unified. The world was told that the South had fired the first gtm and therefore had inaugurated the war. But who caused the war? It is the 9th of April, 1861. The Peace Commissioners have addressed another communication to Mr. Seward. From it we take the following: "Your Government has not chosen to meet the undersigned, in the conciliatory and peaceful spirit in which they are commissioned. Persistently wedded to those fatal theor ies of construction of the Federal Constitution, always rejected by the Statesmen of the South, and adhered to by those of the administration school, until they have produced their natural and often predicted result of the destruction of the Union, under RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 337 which we might have continued to live happily and gloriously together, had the spirit of the ancestry who framed the common Constitution animated the hearts of all their sons....Had you met these issues with the frankness and manliness with which the undersigned were instructed to present them to you and treat them, the undersigned had not the melancholy duty to return home and tell their Government and their countrymen, that their earnest and ceaseless efforts in behalf of peace had been futiler and that the Government of the United States meant to sub jugate them by the force of arms. Whatever may be the result^ impartial history will record the innocence of the Government of the Confederate States, and place the responsibility of the blood" and mourning that may ensue, upon those who have denied the great fundamental doctrine of American liberty, that 'Govern ments derive their just powers from the consent of the governedrr and who have set naval and land armaments in motion, to sub ject the people of one portion of the land to the will of another portion. "Your refusal to entertain these overtures for a peaceful solu tion, the active Naval and Military preparations of this Govern ment, and a formal notice to the commanding General of the. Confederate forces in the harbor of Charleston, that the Presi dent intends to provision Fort Sumter by forcible means, if nec essary, are viewed by the undersigned as a declaration of war against the Confederate States." "It was indeed more than a mere declaration of war. It was an act of war itself." The departure of the Relief Squadron from New York on the 7th of April, 1861, with provisions and soldiers, under orders, to provision and reinforce Fort Sumter, was-the first blow struck in'that great war. The whole world knows who .struck that" blow. It was the beginning of a con test, the magnitude of which is without a parallel in the annals of history. Hannibal, in revenge for the death of his'ancestor, razed to the ground the great city, Himera, and offered up tohis god an awful holocaust of 3,000 prisoners. Lincoln, in re venge for the refusal of the South to accept his construction of the Constitution, razed to the ground many cities, burned in numerable homes, and. devastated the great section of the South, 338 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH and offered up to his god no less than approximately one mil lion patriot citizens of the two sections. In vain was he admon ished of "the often predicted result of the destruction of the Union.'' In vain was he told the North and the South might have continued to live happily and gloriously together, had the spirit of the ancestry animated the hearts of all their sons. In vain was he told the United States meant the subjugation of the South "by the force of arms," and whatever the result might be, impartial history will record the innocence of the Govern ment of the Confederate States, and place the responsibility of the blood and mourning, that may ensue, upon those who have denied the great fundamental doctrines of American liberty, that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." It is now known that Gen. W infield Scott, as Commander-inChief of the United States army, advised, "Let the wayward sis ters go in peace." It is also of record that Senator Douglas, on the 15th of March offered a resolution to that effect. Speaking in advocacy of this resolution he said: "We certain ly cannot justify the holding of Forts there, much less the re capturing of those which have been taken, unless we intend to reduce those States, themselves, into subjection. I take it for granted no man will deny the proposition that whoever perma nently holds Charleston and South Carolina, is entitled to the possession of Fort Sumter. Whoever permanently holds Pensacola and Florida is entitled to the possession of Fort Pickens. Whoever holds the States in whose limits those forts are placed, are entitled to the forts themselves; unless there is something peculiar in the location of some particular fort that makes it im portant for us to hold it for the general defense of the whole country, its commerce and interests, instead of being useful only for the defense of a particular city or locality." Note the strong confident language of Mr. Douglas, "I take it for granted no man will deny the proposition that whoever holds Charleston and South Carolina, is entitled to the possession of Fort Sumter." And who was Douglas? In 1841 a judge of the Supreme Court of Illinois, twice a candidate for President of the United States--in 1851 and 1856. This most emminent and RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 339 most able statesman says, "I take it for granted." He further said, "We cannot deny that there is a. Southern Confederacy, de facto, in existence with its capital at Montgomery. We may regret it. I regret it most profoundly; but I cannot deny the truth of the fact, painful and mortifying as it is... .1 proclaim boldly the policy of those with whom I act We are for peace. There is no concealment on this side." This is the language of censure and rebuke for the policy of the Government. "I regret it most profoundly" is no less a rebuke than are the words, "There is no concealment on this side." Mr. Douglas next said, "We must choose and that promptly, between one of three lines of policy: "1. The restoration and preservation of the Union, by such amendments to the Constitution as will insure the domestic tranquility, safety and equality of all the States, and thus restore peace, unity and fraternity to the whole country. "2. A Peaceful dissolution of the Union, by recognizing the Independence of such States as refuse to remain in the Union without such Constitutional amendments, and the establishment of a liberal system of commercial and social intercourse with them, by treaties of commerce and amity. "3. War, with a view to the subjugation and military occu pation of those States which have seceded, or may secede, from the Union. "In my opinion the first proposition is the best, and the last the worst, why cannot we arrive at some amicable adjustment of the questions in dispute? Mr. Douglas knew the seceded States had 'merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence had defined to be inalienable;" and they had withdrawn from the Union for the sole purpose of preserving to themselves the principles of the Constitution; and that the holding of these forts was a declara tion of war. This resolution was tabled by a vote of 23 to 11, every Dem ocrat and Anti-Centralist voting for it. It is an assured fact that eleven Sentaors agreed with Gen. Scott It is also assured that Mr. Lincoln on the 14th day of March, 1861, telegraphed to the world that Fort Sumter was '340 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH to be evacuated; and hence, that, then, Mr. Lincoln himself agreed with Gen. Scott. This fact can not be denied. It is also certain that this historic message caused seven Governors from seven Northern States to hastily assemble in Washington City, where they hastily organized, and in a body opposed the policy of peace, tendering the Government their organized mil itary forces. It is also an established fact that Mr. Lincoln changed his peace policy to that of war. Shall we say it?-- it is also an established fact that this change of policy was not flashed to the world by the electric spark. True manliness and true honor demanded the same publicity for this change of pol icy as was given to the policy of peace. But not even the Peace Commissioners from the Montgomery Government were inform ed as to the change. Believing that Lincoln and Seward were 'incapable of treachery and falsehood, they were still resting upon assurance. At the same time, while falsehood and treachery stood as a 'screen between the Commissioners and the Federal Government, vigorous preparations for war and subjugation were being secret ly carried on by the latter. What verdict will be that of the dispassionate and disinterested future historian? It is an established fact also that Major Anderson agreed :w'ith -Gen! Scott, as shown by the following letter protesting against Fox's plan for relieving Fort Sumter: " :: "Fort Sumter, S. C., April 8, 1861. "To Col. L.' Thomas, Adjt. Gen., U. S. Army: "Colonel: I have the honor to report that resumption of 'work yesterday (Sunday) at various points On Morris Island, and 'the vigorous prosecution of it this morning, apparently strength ening all' the batteries which are under the fire of our guns, Show's they either have just received some news from Washing ton which has put them on the qui vive, or that they have re ceived orders from Montgomery to commence operations here. I: 'am preparing, by the side of my barbette guns, protection for our men from the shells which will be almost continually burst- ^ing over or in our work. "'"f"had r the :!hdnor:- te receive, by yesterday's mail, the letter 'of the Hon. Sec. f War, dated April the 4th, and confess that SICHAEDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 341 what he there states surprises me very greatly--following as it does, and contradicting so positively the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was authorized to make. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such: would be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout pur country. It is of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all. concerned. Even with his boat at our wall, the loss of life (as I think I mentioned to Mr. Fox) in unloading her will more than pay for the good accomplished by the expedition, which keeps us, if I can maintain possession of this work, out of posi tion, surrounded by strong works which must be carried to make this Fort of the least value to the United States Government. "We have not oil enough to keep a light in the lantern for one night. The boats will have to, therefore, rely at night en tirely upon other marks. I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Col. Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, wouldnot be carried out. "We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in this war, which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific means to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer! "I am, Colonel, very respectfully, "Your obedient servant, Robert Anderson, "Major 1st Artillery, Commanding." Note that this letter was written on the 8th of April, and yet Major Anderson says frankly "my heart is not in this war which is to be thus commenced. He knew on the 8th of April that war was meant.He then makes that "ardent prayer" "that God would avert it and cause us to resort to pacific means." The "us" refers to the United States Government for he knew from the assurances of Mr. Crawford that the Montgomery Govern ment vwas anxiously seeking peaceful means. Evidently Major 342 RICHARDSONS DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH Anderson knew the United States Government was thus begin ning the war. There is another very important fact mentioned in this letter, viz: "If I can maintain possession of this work," it is "sur rounded by strong works which must be carried to make this fort of the least value to the United States Government"--that is Fort Sumter will be of no use to us even if we can hold it. Was the real object of this expedition to hold Fort Sumter? We shall see. It also shows his dissatisfaction with orders from Washington, and his want of sympathy with his Government's bad faith. It is a vindication of Major Anderson as a character and as a gen tleman. It is also to be remembered that he was writing to a superior military officer; and was writing, therefore, with more or less reserve. Another important fact: On the llth day of April Governor Pickens and Gen. Beauregard were informally notified through an agent from Washington that Fort Sumter was to be rein forced "peacefully if possible--otherwise by force." Immediate ly this information was telegraphed to Montgomery, and on the same day Beauregard was instructed as follows: "If you have no doubt of the authorized character of the agent who communi cated to you the intention of the Washington Government to supply Fort Sumter by force, you will at once demand its evacua tion ; and if this is refused, proceed in such manner, as you may determine, to reduce it." Who is the aggressor here? Beauregard, therefore, sent a messenger demanding the evac uation of the fort. To which Major Anderson replied, "I regret that my sense of honor, and my obligations to my Government prevent my compliance." He then remarked to the messenger, "If you do not batter us to pieces we will starve out within a few days." Andersen's written reply and his verbal remark, both, were immediately sent to the Montgomery Government; and the reply that, at once, came back was conciliatory and discreet, showing that the Confederate Government would not fire on Fort Sumter unless compelled to do so. It was as follows: "Do not desire needlesly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will EICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 343 state the time at which, as indicated by himself, he will evacuate, and agree that, in the meantime, he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this or its equivalent is refused, reduce the fort as your judgment decides most practicable." Why was Major Anderson requested to name the time he would evacuate the fort, and promise "not to use his guns against the Confederates" in the meantime? Because that warlike fleet with war orders was momentarily expected to enter the Harbor of Charleston, and that renewed and persistent act of war would be a defiant challenge for combat, and the challenge was sure of acceptance. In that event, unless Major Anderson would con sent not to use his guns, the forces under Beauregard would be exposed to two fires at once--from both the front and rear. It is well known that Anderson refused this request. Why? Be cause he knew eleven ships with 250 guns and 2400 soldiers were near at hand to reenforce him with both provisions and men. Thus closed the stirring events late on the llth day of April. At 3 o'clock on the next morning (12th April) that armed fleet instructed to supply Fort Sumter with men and provisions by force "if necessary," anchored just off the Harbor of Charles ton. At 4:30 o'clock on the same fatal morning just one and one-half hours later, the boom of the first gun of that most ter rible war was heard. That gun was the culmination of Lincoln's war message and deception and intrigue, and falsehood, and treachery, and threatened force. It was fired in self-defense. If the threatened invasion of the Harbor of Charleston by this fleet with orders to forcibly supply Fort Sumter did not mean war what did it mean? If on a peaceful mission why those heavy guns? Why those armed men? If peace was its object why did it not come in the garb of peace, and in the spirit of peace? Ablest statesmen, both North and South knew war was meant. They were not deceived. Nor is any well informed1 man deceived today. War was meant and the North can not becloud the fact. Henry Hallam in his "Constitutional History of England (vol. 2, p. 219) says, "The aggressor in a war is not the first who 344 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOU.TH uses force, but the first who renders force necessary." The first edition of this work was published in 1827; and it has been acknowledged so masterly that it has, since, gone through many editions. It has also been translated into the French and Ger man languages. With him agrees Dryden when he defines the aggressor as the "one who commences a quarrel;" and also Web ster when he styles the aggressor the "one who commits the first act" With all these high authorities is common sense in full accord. Therefore the firing of that first gun at 4:30 o'clock on the morning of the 12th of April, 1861, did not inaugurate that most terrible war. CHAPTER XXV. WHO INAUGURATED THE WAR? In the last chapter we showed from Hallam that the aggres sors in a war are those who render force necessary, and not those who first use force. In this chapter we shall introduce additional testimony that the authorities at Washington, and not those at Montgomery, were the aggressors. In the Papers of the Southern Historical Society appended to the Southern Magazine for February, 1874, is a letter from Judge Campbell to Col. George Munford. In that letter we arc told by Judge Campbell of a visit made by Judge Nelson, on the 15th of March, 1861, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, and to Mr. Bates, the Attorney General; and that his object was to dissuade them from putting into execution any policy of coercion. Here is a part of what Judge Campbell says of that visit to Judge Nelson: "During the term of the Supreme Court he (Judge Nelson) had very carefully examined the laws of the United States to enable him to attain his conclusions, and from time to time he had consulted Chief Justice Taney upon the ques tions which his examination had suggested. His conclusion was that, without very serious violations of the Constitution and Statutes, coercion could not be successfully effected by the Exeecutive Department. As he was returning from his visit to the State Department we casually met and he informed me of what he had done. He said he had spoken to these officers at large; that he was received with respect, and listened to attentively by all, with approbation by the Attorney General, and with great cordiality by the Secretary of State; that the Secretary had ex pressed gratification to find so many impediments to the disturb ance of peace, and only wished there had been more. He stated the Secretary told him there was a present cause of embarrass ment; that the Southern commissioners had demanded recogni tion, and a refusal would lead to irritation and excitement in the Southern States, and would cause a counter-irritation in the 346 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH Northern States prejudicial to a peaceful adjustment. Justice Nelson suggested that I might be of service." Observe that this letter shows four of the very highest legal functionaries,--Chief Justice Taney, Justice Nelson, Justice Camp bell and Attorney Gen. Bates,--all agreeing that coercion could not be successfully effected by the Executive Department "with out very serious violations of the Constitution and Statutes." For more than six and one-half decades this had been the deci sion ; that is, during the entire life of the Republic. It was never called in question till the exigencies of a political party demanded it. Confirmed by the rigid investigations of the last half cen tury, it will be sustained and strengthened by all future investi gations. Founded on the bed-rock of the very fabric of the Republic it can never be changed. Lincoln, in his inaugural address, referred to his sacred oath, obligating him to enforce the Constitution and execute the laws, yet he refused to consult the only tribunal whose decision is law itself. From the testimony of Justice Nelson, it seems that he was more concerned about "irritation" in the South and "coun ter-irritation" in the North, than about the enforcement of the Constitution. Yet his policy of deception was a policy of irri tation to both sections. His policy of deception was supplanted by that of coercion, a policy of irritation, beside which that of peace would have been to both sections as the gentlest zephyr to the mightiest storm. As for the North it is well known that more than 62 per cent, of her votes were cast against Lincoln, and a large per cent, of his own party were opposed to coercion. Hence the "counter-irritation" in the North would not have been so bad as depicted. In compliance with the suggestion of Judge Nelson these two distinguished citizens visited the State Department together, and urged Mr. Seward to reply to the Commissioners, and assure them of the desire of the Government, for a friendly adjustment. Mr. Seward objected to an immediate recognition of the Com missioners, on the ground that the North would not sustain it in connection with the withdrawal of the troops from Fort Sumter, which had been determined on. "The evacuation of Sumter," he said, "is as much as the administration can bear." RICHARDSONS DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 347 Judge Campbell says: "I concurred in the conclusion that the evacuation of Sumter involved responsibility and stated that there could not be too much caution in the adoption of measures so as not to shock or irritate the public sentiment, and that the evacuation of Sumter was sufficient for the present in that di rection. I stated that I would see the Commissioners, and I would write to Mr. Davis to that effect I asked him what I should say as to Sumter and as to Pickens. He authorized me to say that before that letter could reach him (Davis) he would learn by telegraph that the order for the evacuation of Sumter had been made. He said the condition of Pickens was satisfac tory, and there would be no change made there." The order to evacuate Fort Sumter was never given. Fort Pickens was reenforced. Judge Campbell further says that Mr. Crawford was slow to consent not to press the demand for rec ognition. "It was only after some discussion and expression of some objections that he consented" to do so. The condition of this consent was that Fort Sumter should be evacuated at a very early date. "Mr. Crawford required the pledge of Mr. Seward to be reduced to writing with Judge Campbell's personal assur ance of its genuiness and accuracy." This statement was put in writing, approved by Judge Nelson, and then submitted to the Secretary of State, who approved of it. This was a pledge not only to the Commissioners, but also to the highest authority. For the Secretary of State is "the official organ of communication of the views and purposes of his Government" What pledge was that? It was, that Fort Sumter would be evacuated within a few days, and that the status of Fort Pickens would not be disturbed. Remember, a pledge is a very strong way of asserting a fact It is a surety of ful filling a promise. Judge Campbell further says: "In the course of this con versation I told Judge Crawford that it was fair to tell him that the opinion at Washington was, the secession movements were shortlived, that his Government would wither under sun shine and that they might have a contrary effect, but that I did not consider the effect I wanted, above all other things, peace. I was willing to accept whatever peace might bring, 348 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH whether Union or disunion. I did not look beyond peace. He said he was willing to take all the risk of sunshine." It is also fair to say, that, many Southerners believed that with a policy of peace on the part of the North the Confederate and the United States Government would have finally merged into one Government by compromises satisfactory to both sections; that the South's fidelity to the common Constitution was beyond dispute; and that in the North the love for the Constitution would have finally prevailed. Thus many true Southerners believed that by profiting by experience the two sections would unite under a. more perfect, a stronger, and a more enduring Government. After waiting five days the Commissioners telegraphed Gen. Beauregard to know if the Fort had been evacuated, and if not were there any indications that it probably would be soon. Beauregard replied that the Fort had not been evacuated; and that there were no indications of such a purpose, but on the contrary Major Anderson was strengthening its defences. This dispatch was shown Judge Campbell, who with Judge Nelson immediately called on Mr. Seward. They held two inter views with the Secretary of State. Of the result Judge Camp bell states: "The last was full and satisfactory. The Secretary was bouyant and sanguine; he spoke of his ability to carry through his policy with confidence. He accounted for the delay as ac cidental, and not involving the integrity of his assurances that the evacuation would take place, and that I should know when ever any change was made in the resolution in reference to Sumter or Pickens. I repeated this assurance in writing to Judge Crawford, and informed Governor Seward in writing of what I had said." How assurances had accumulated that Fort Sumter's garrison would be withdrawn! How startling were the facts that have since been brought to light! All the time these asusrances were becoming voluminous the Government was assiduously engaged in devising means to retain possession of the fort. The Presi dent and his Secretary must have been educated in that school of politics whose chief motto is, "All things are fair in politics." That school never turned out two more capable and more il lustrious graduates than Seward and Lincoln. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 349 It is well known that G. V. Fox afterward assistant secretary of the U. S. Navy, proposed to President Buchanan a plan for supplying and reinforcing Fort Sumter in February. In a let ter published since the war he tells how his plan was renewed to Lincoln's administration and of its reception by Lincoln. In that letter he says: "On the 12th of March I received a telegram from Postmaster Gen. Blair to come to Washington. I arrived there on the 13th of March. Mr. Blair having been acquainted with the proposition I presented to Gen. Scott under Mr. Buchanan's administration, sent for me to tender the same to Mr. Lincoln, informing me that Lieut.-Gen. Scott had advised the President that the fort could not be relieved, and must be given up. Mr. Blair took me at once to the White House, and I explained the plan to the President. Thence we adjourned to Lieut.-Gen. Scott's office, where a renewed discussion of the subject took place. The General informed the President that my plan was practicable in February, but that the increased num ber of batteries erected at the mouth of the harbor since that time rendered it Impossible in March. "Finding that there was great opposition to any attempt at relieving Fort Sumter and that Mr. Blair alone sustained the President in his policy of refusing to yield, I judged that my arguments in favor of the practicability of sending in supplies would be strenghtened by a visit to Charleston and the fort. The President readily agreed to my visit, if the Secretary of War and Gen. Scott raised no objection. "Both these gentlemen consenting, I left Washington the 19th of March, and passing through Richmond and Washington reach ed Charleston on the 21st." This letter of Fox shows that on the 12th of March only Lin coln and Blair favored reinforcing Fort Sumter. It also shows that at the very time Secretary Seward was making renewed as surances of the most positive character, through Judges Camp bell and Nelson, a secret agent was on the way to Charleston to obtain information and advise plans by which Fort Sumter could be supplied and reinforced. In other words while giving pledges he was spying out means by which -he could break those pledges. From the message of Governor Pickens to the South Carolina 350 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH Legislature, November, 1861, we learn that Fox obtained per mission to visit Fort Sumpter "expressly uppn the pledge of pa cific purposes." But a pledge to Fox was no more binding than it was to Seward and Lincoln. While in the fort he matured the details of his plan to supply and reinforce the garrison as he himself informs us without making known his plans and pur poses to Major Anderson. As the result of that visit his plan was approved and the Relief-Squadron was called into exis tence. This is not all. In the same message to which we have re ferred, Governor Pickens says, "In a very few days after, an other Confidential agent, Col. Lamon, was sent by the Presi dent (Mr. Lincoln), who informed me that he had come to try and arrange for the removal of the garrison, and, when he re turned from the fort, asked if a war vessel could not be allowed to remove them. I replied that no war vessel could be allowed to enter the harbor on any terms. He said he believed Major Anderson preferred an ordinary steamer, and I agreed that the garrison might be thus removed. He said he hoped to return in a very few days for that purpose." Lamon had gone to the fort upon the same pledge of "pacific purposes." He talked, he acted as if the garrison was to be re moved. When a war-vessel was refused by the Governor as the means of removing the garrison he thought "Major Ander son preferred an ordinary steamer." He returned to Washing ton expressing a hope "to return in a few days for that pur pose"--the purpose of removing the garrison. At that very time Mr. Fox was secretly active in making preparations for his Re lief Squadron. j Consider the visits of these two emisaries (Fox and Lamon) and their violations of their pledges of "pacific purposes." Let it be remembered at the same time that Lamon did not return to Charleston "for that purpose," as he had promised. Let it also be remembered that on the 10th of March> 1861, Governor Pickens telegraphed the Commissioners in Washington inquiring about Col. Lamon and why he delayed to fulfil the promise of evacuation. Remember too that it was just fifteen days ago when the first assurance of Mr. Seward had been made that Fort BICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 351 Sumter would be evacuated immediately; and just ten days after he had explained that "The delay was accidental." That despatch of Governor Pickens was submitted to Secre tary Seward by Judge Campbell. The first day of April was appointed for an interview and answer. When that day came Mr. Seward said to Judge Campbell, "There was a point of honor involved; that Lamon had no agency from him nor title to speak." (Judge Campbell's letter to Col. Munford) Honor? where among all these multiplied facts of contradiction and falsehood had it found an abode? But Mr. Seward returned, through Judge Campbell, this answer to the Commissioners: "The Government will not undertake to supply Fort Sumter with out giving notice to Governor Pickens." Thus Lamon was de based because he failed. Who doubts if the ruse of Lamon had succeeded that his name would have been placed on the honorroll? Judge Campbell says in his letter to Munford, "I asked Mr. Seward whether I was to understand that there had been a change in his former communications. His answer was 'none.'" Because of general rumors Judge Campbell in behalf of the commissioners on the 7th of April wrote again to Mr. Seward, "asking whether the assurances so often given were well or ill founded." Mr. Seward replied in writing: "Faith as to Sum ter fully kept. Wait and see." At that very moment the squad ron was in the act of leaving New York and Portsmouth. The very next day (April 8) Mr. Chew, an official of Mr. Seward's department, accompanied by Capt. Talbot, appeared be fore Gov. Pickens and Gen. Beauregard in Charleston, and read to them the following paper, which he and Talbot said was from the President of the United States: "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that, if such an attempt is not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort. (Record of Fort Sumter by W. A. Harris.) What a travesty upon plighted faith! Is this the meaning of "Faith as to Fort Sumter fully kept?" Is this the hidden mean- 352 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH ing of "wait and see ?" After all the multiplied deceptions prac ticed by Lincoln and Seward did Mr. Lincoln expect Gov. Pick- ens and Gen. Beauregard to believe him as to "provisions only ?" Where are all those pacific pledges that echo along the march- of 27 days? They are lost in the wide, wide realm of treach ery. Did Mr. Lincoln imagine that his deceptive pacific pledges had thus far succeeded so well that Gov. Pickens and Gen. Beau- regard would believe even that a number of gunboats, the vehi cles of implements of war, would come burdened with "provi sions only?" But agent Chew did not mention gunboats in Lincoln's name. No, but the ever vigilant press had; and he reported that "an attempt will be made." "An attempt" implies force if necessary and Mr. Chew did not say the vessels loaded with "provisions only" would be unarmed. The time agent Chew delivered Mr. Lincoln's message is the 8th day of April 1861. A portion of Fox's Relief Fleet has been a full day at sea. At the average rate of speed it is expected to ride gracefully and triumphantly into the Charleston Harbor almost immediately after Gov. Pickens and Gen. Beauregard are notified, and before they can prepare to receive it. Why does this expectation fail? It is due to a severe storm which anchors the fleet just off the Harbor of Charleston. Had not the storm surprised and delayed the fleet it would have surprised Gov. Pick- ens and Gen. Beauregard. On the very day (April 8) Mr. Chew reported that "an at tempt to reinforce Fort Sumter" will be made, the Peace Com missioners sent this dispatch to Gen. Beauregard: : "Washington, April 8, 1861. Gen. G. T. Beauregard: Accounts uncertain because of the constant vacillation of this Government. We were reassured yes terday that the status of Sumter would not be changed without previous notice to Gov. Pickens, but we have no faith in them. The war policy prevails in the Cabinet at this time. M. J. Crawford." This despatch discloses three facts: 1. That the Commis sioners had ceased to place any confidence in the promises of the United States Government, or (2) in assurances that the status of Fort Sumter would not be changed without previous RICHARDSON'S DKFKKSB OF THE SOUTH 3W notice to Gov. Pickens; (3) "The war policy prevailed at" that time." - - Mr. Gideon Wells, Secretary f:the Navy in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, fixes the time when "the President-announced his de cision that supplies should be sent to Sumter, and issued Confi dential orders to that effect. All were gratified with this deci^ sion, except Mr. Seward, who still remonstrated, bur prepara tions were immediately commenced to fit out an expedition to fon- ward supplies." ("Lincoln ami Sewapd," .\T. Y., ISM, pp. 57 and 58). .... The time fixed'by Mr. Wells in this letter is the 28th of March, 1861. Observe 1, that Mr. Lincoln decided to supply Fort Sumter on the '38th of March ; 2, that at the same time he "issued orders to that effect;" 3, that these orders were "confi dential ;" 4, that "all were gratified except Seward, who still remonstrated;" and 5, that perparations were immediately com menced. And remember that it was the 8th of April when Gov. Pickens was notified--eleven days after Lincoln's decision. All this time "pacific pledges" were being made. All this rime the preparations began "immediately" were being secretly per formed, under "confidential orders." Francis Newton Thorpe in "The Civil War from a Northern Standpoint" thus corroborates Gideon Wells: Lincoln exhatised information about Fort Sumter and all pertaining to the ques tion its reinforcement involved. As the result of much negotia tion and many interviews Justice Campbell of Alabama, of the United States Supreme Court, reinforced by Nelson of New York, also of the Supreme. Court, strongly advised the Secretary of State against any attempt at coercion. Lincoln consented that Fort Sumter should be evacuated, also Fort Pickens' and publication of this decision was made....This was the political situation on March 28, 1861 (p. 234).: - The universal verdict is that this was a true peace poh'cy. It was strongly "advised" by two Supreme Court Judges: There fore it had strong judicial support: One-of these judges was from the North and the other from the South. It was, therefore, non-sectional as well as impartial. It was also "the result of much negotiation and many interviews." It was, therefore, well RICHARDSONS DEFENSE OF .THE SOUTH considered. . In fact there was nothing hasty about it except its abandonment. If this was a true peace policy, as all admit, by what manner of. argument can .its very opposite be also a true peace policy? If not a peace policy it was a war policy. No logic can evade this conclusion. Who then inaugurated it? .On the next page (235) Mr. Thorpe says, in defense of Mr. Lincoln, "In truth promise to evacuate Fort Sumter had been irade by Secretary Seward without Lincoln's authority," ap parently forgetting that he had just said "Lincoln consented that Fort -Sumter should be evacuated, also Fort Pickens, and publi cation of this decision was made". It is to be presumed that Gideon Wells, a member of the Lincoln Cabinet, and present in the meeting on that fatal occasion of such a momentous decision, knew more about it than does Mr. Thoq>e. "All were gratified with this decision," says Mr. Wells, except Mr. Seward, who still remonstrated." The time has come when responsibilty should be fixed for that war which brought tears and lamentations to millions of American homes. It can not be fixed on the South. An attempt is now being made to lay the blame on poor Seward. He indeed was the medium of deception as to Lincoln's plans, but Mr. Wells tells us that Seward on that eventful occasion was the only cabinet member that opposed coercion. But had Mr. Wells not spoken it would be impossible to dis associate the action of the President from that of his Secretary. Can any intelligent American citizen believe that the President can be relieved from responsibility for the conduct of his secre tary ? Is it a thinkable proposition that the man who "exhaust ed information about Fort Sumter and all pertaining to the quest?f>n its reenforcmeent involved," was ignorant, for nearly one month, of what transpired between the Secretary and the Com missioners, and that too, through the medium of the distinguish ed members of the Supreme Court? Some men may be de ceived for a time, but all men can not be deceived for all time. CHAPTER XXVI. LINCOLNS FIRST CALL FOR TROOPS. The mask as to the South has been thrown off. Deception and intrigue have done their work. The South's earnest desire for peace in the closing days of 1860 and in the beginning of 1861 are read in the speeches and addresses of her leading statesmen before and at the time of secession; in all the resolutions of her State Legislatures and State Conventions; in all the acts of her Congress; in the efforts of her Peace Commissioners: in her deep sense of utter want of preparation for war: and in her consciousness that she had all to lose by war and nothing to gain. Had she sprung a Colossus Giant as a Nation full armed into the arena of world-powers, and had each of these powers extended to her the warm strong- hand of friendship, it would not have been, even then, to her interest to have invited war. But, instead, she stood alone, unarmed, a sublime spectacle in the rectitude of her conduct, awaiting the impending storm fore shadowed in Lincoln's inaugural address: in falsehood personi fying truth: in treachery wearing the garb of sincerity: in an armed expedition, having "confidential orders, to reinforce Fort Sumter;" in the war-rumors published throughout the North! in short, in the gradual unfolding of the plans of the Federal Government. Not the least among these was the intended sur prise for the authorities, at Charleston, S. C., prevented only by a severe storm at sea, viz: The Reinforcement of Fort Sum ter. The light that is now being focussed upon the issues of the Sixties is revealing a conservative South that suffered for the principles of self-government, the principles of the Declaration of Independence; suffered with a matchless fortitude and a hero ism unknown; a conservative South, the virtues of whose man hood and womanhood rival those of the palmiest days of Greece and Rome; a conservative South whose Heroic defense of her civil rights challenges the world for a parallel; a Conservative South that stood like the solid rock of Gibralter for four long years against the Northern millions, reinforced by more than 356 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 900,000 foreigners and 200,000 Southern negroes; a conserva tive South that by her courage and valor, having won in the Sixties, the admiration of the world, will be revered and honor ed for all time as no other section of earth's wide domain has ever been; a conservative South that now, in time of peace, is making a record that bids fair to equal, if not surpass, her rec ord in war. It is in defense of this South we write. If the North was right in inaugurating war why did she practice deception, in trigue, and falehood ? These are not the friends of right, virtue, and truth. If the North was right why did she hesitate and vacillate ? Hesitancy and vascillation are twin brothers of doubt and wrong. Right is the child of justice, and both the child and parent have comparatively few friends in this world. Wrong numbers her subjects by the million; right, hers by the hun dred. If the States were mere provinces the North was right. But What tongue so false to truth as to declare they were mere pro vinces? Did not all the fathers call them States in the full sense? The very name of the Federal Government, United States (States United) would be meaningless if the States were mere provinces. Therefore they were not provinces, but States; and the North by inaugurating the war was guilty of injustice, and treason and murder. The impartial historian of the future will so decclare. The language of fact is often severe. We have shown that the States are States in the same sense in which Great Britain is; and hence that South Carolina was a State in the full sense. As such she ceded in trust to the Agent of all the States the ground on which Fort Sumter was built--in trust for the defence for her own soil and her own chief harbor. It is universally conceded that all cessions of sites for military purposes by the States were made in trust for the defence of the particular States so ceding the sites. In South Carolina's case this principle applies with special force. All the streams emptying into that harbor are wholly within her borders. She alone had any distinct interest .in a fortress at that point. This is what Mr. Douglas meant when he used the words we have previously quoted: "I take it for RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 357 granted that whoever permanently holds Charleston and South Carolina is entitled to the possession of Fort Sumter. Whoever holds permanently Pensacola and Florida is entitled to the pos session of Fort Pickens. Whoever holds the States in whose limits these forts are placed is entitled to the forts themselves, unless there is something peculiar in the location of some par ticular fort that makes it important for us to hold it for the general defense of the whole country, instead of being useful for the defence of a particular city or locality." If Douglas had been President the Constitution would not have been violated by the Federal Government, and the loyal South would not have seceded, and there would have been no war; and American blood would not have enriched American soil. Douglas knew that to have taken possession of Fort Sumter and to have attempted to hold it was as much a declaration of war as to have taken possession of the city of Charleston and to have attempted to hold it. If Lincoln did not know this it was due to his failure to have informed himself. All know that Lincoln's education was limited, and that it was acquired under great disadvantages. When Fort Sumter fell South Carolina had been a seceded State for nearly four months. During all that time persistent attempts with two successive administrations had been made for its evacuation. We have already seen how these attempts were met by evasion, deception, prevarication and perfidy. We knowthat one administration agreed to maintain the status quo; and that this agreement was violated in December. 18fiO, when the garrison of one fort was removed to a stronger. We know that agreement was violated again in January !8>>1, according to the report of Captain McGowan. Commander of the Star of the West. He concealed below the deck of the steam er four officers and two hundred men on arriving off Charles ton. His report is in these words: "The soldiers were now all put below, and no one allowed on deck except our crew." Tt failed because of the vigilance of South Carolina. If the South finally failed to trust the pledges of the Federal Government whose fault was it? If the South's unexampled forbearance was finally exhausted, who was to blame? Yet the 358 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH South was falsely and treacherously represented to the world as the aggressor--so represented by a great Government which was regarded by the world as incapable of false representation. She was thus officially misrepresented, and that meant misrep resentation in the name of law and organized Government, beside Which misrepresentation by an individual was as nothing. Fort Sumter surrendered on the 13th of April 1861. Two days later Lincoln issued this proclamation: "Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed in the States of South Carolina, Georgia. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louis iana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law: "Now. therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power, in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth the militia of the several States of the Union, to the ag gregate number of seventy-five thousand in order to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed--And ' hereby command the persons composing the combinations afore said to disperse and retire peaceably to their resjjective abodes within twenty days from this date." Let it be remembered first that it was not "in virture of pow ers in me vested by the Constitution and laws," as witnessed by Sec. 4, Art. 4. Constitution, which reads as follows: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the Legislature, or of the Eexecntive (when tht* Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence." Here the Common Constitution of the States makes it manda tory of their common agent, the Federal Government, to protect each State against invasion; and the word invasion is not Quali fied. It therefore means any invasion whatsoever. Let it also be known that Lincoln had declared the seven seceded States were still in the Union--that they could not secede. If these States were still in the Union bv what authority did he call on RICHARDSONS DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 35$ other States of the Union to invade them ? Was it not a palpable violation of the Constitution.? a flagrant usurpation of power undelegated? The language is plainly compulsory, viz: "And shall protect each State against invasion/ "Shall protect against invasion" certainly does not command invasion. "Protect" is the very opposite of coercion. Yet Lincoln construed the Con stitution as investing him with the power to coerce. Common sense stands aghast at such a construction. Are we told that Mr. Lincoln justified his course on the ground that the Constitution contains no clause forbidding, in express terms, the coercion of a State? Then the reply is if he did not know the absence of such a clause in the Constitution forbade his coercion of a State he was educationally deficient in the necessary qualifications for the President *>f this great Republic. Is it possible that we must accept Charles Francis Adams theory of fatalism: that it was foreordained that such a man at such a time should beplaced at the head of this Govern ment? If so was the Great I Am responsible for all the irregu lar, treacherous and false means by which it was accomplished? Again, in this proclamation of Mr. Lincoln we have a very strange fiction: Mr. Lincoln refers to the seven seceded States as forming "combinations too powerful to be surpressed by the ordinary means," and then commands "the aforesaid persons composing the combinations" to disperse. Never before nor since, have States been referred to as "persons composing com binations." Think of it, "the States of this Union are the Sovereign creators of the Federal Government"--created by them to be made their common agent! It was now the strang est thing in all history occurred, viz: The creature-agent commanded seven of these soveregn creators "to disperse and re turn peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days." Is it any wonder that President Lincoln thought the States were mere persons? To make these State-persons, or person-States, disperse he levied so large an army as 7.5,000 men. This levy meant .-. Yet the power to declare war was delegated by the States to Congress only. The President had no more authority to declare war than did the Supreme Court. JIICHARDSON^.;DEFJBN3K OP THE SOUTH f^n, if this "combination:" had been riotous or insurrec tionary it would have been, -according to the Constitution, against tftf State and tot against the federal Government. Nor could the President call for the militia to suppress it till the State had -made application for that purpose. It could neither pre cede the application of the State, nor could it be made with out the consent , of the. State. Sec. 4, Art. 4, of the Con stitution, to which we have just referred, is very clear on this point. .... . Let .it be : remembered in the next place, that this call for troops was not made -upon the American people en masse, but upon .the States. The governors of the Northern States--not of the Northern Provinces--made prompt response. Indignant replies were returned by all the border States with the one ex ception of- Maryland. .Governor Hicks of Maryland refused to obey the command ; of .the President but .did it in more polite terms. Thus all the border States refused to furnish troops Was, this refusal: without .its. meaning? Had their loyalty ever f>eore been called in question ? Did they .not. refuse on the ground that the States had never delegated to the Federal. Government the right to coerce a State ? The right to do this, as we have seen, "was unanimously refected in the -formation, of the Constitution." With these bor der States Mr. Greely, and a vast number of other supporters of Mr. Lincoln,. agreed. With these also agreed the vast follow ing of Mr. Douglas, as well as those of Bell and Breckinbridge. May we not again ask, Can it be Charles Francis Adam's doc trine of fatalism is .true? "Men of high degree are a lie." (Bible.) The people of Virginia were in Convention assembled when this proclamation .was issued. Hence Virginia was the first State to reply. She loved the Union of the Constitution. For this her people and the people of all the Southland would have died if necessary. But she did not love another union based upot- some indefinite fanatical dogma. She had manifested and proved her undying ; love for the Union of the fathers by her earnest but fruitless efforts to preserve it. Among these ef forts was the Peace Congress called at her suggestion. She now believed Loth- the Constitution and the Unbi were broken. For. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 361 to break the Constitution was to break the Union. The Consti tution was the band that bound the States together. When that band was broken the inevitable result was dissolution. Lincoln issued his proclamation on the 15th day of April, 1861, two days after the fall of Fort Sumter. Virginia se ceded on the 17th of April, 1861, two days after Lincoln's proclamation calling upon her for troops. In doing so she declared her absolute right by "An ordinance to repeal the rati fication of the Constitution of the United States, and resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution. "The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Consti tution of the United States of America, adopted bv them in Con vention on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people, of the United States, and might be resumed when ever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppres sion, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the op pression of the Southern slave-holding States. "Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia; do declare and ordain. That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention on the 25th day of June, 1788, whereby the Con stitution of the United States of America was ratified, and al' acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying and adopt ing amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated: that the Union between the States and the Other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in full possession and exercise of all her rights which belong and appertain to a free and inde pendent State. "And they further declare the said Constitution of the United States is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State." "This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day. when ratified by a majority of the votes of the people of this State cast at a pole to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday 362 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted. "Adopted by the Convention of Virginia April the 17th, 1861. "John Janney, President, "John J. Eubanks, Secretary." This was Virginia's reply to President Lincoln's call for troops. It said to President Lincoln that "Virginia in adopting the. Con stitution in 1788, expressly reserved the right to resume the powers granted tinder the Constitution whenever in her opin ion the same "should be perverted to her injury and oppression." Without this reservation Virginia would never have entered the Union. In admitting Virginia into the Union the States of the then Union said to her, "We grant you this right." Virginia now thinks the Constitution has been "perverted to her injury and oppression"; and not only to hers but also to the injury of the entire South. "Virginia, therefore, replies to your requisition for troops by resuming all the rights and powers she granted in 1788 to the United States under the Constitution of the same. For seventythree years the unbroken voice of the Federal Government has declared this to be Virginia's undisputed right; and therefore the undisputed right of all the States of the Union. It remains for your administration to deny this right so hallowed, so af firmed, and so confirmed, and to turn this great American Gov ernment of free and independent States into a despotism--a despot ism that defies 'the Constitution and laws' you have sworn to execute--a despotism that now declares its purpose to coerce independent States for exercising a right never disputed by the Federal Government till you emerged, from the woods'into the open--a despotism that calls on Virginians to join you in your open and known violation of the Constitution, and to unite with your forces in shedding the blood of Virginia's brethren for their fidelity to the common compact of the Union, and for exercising a right they never doubted being theirs. If Virginians must fight they prefer to espouse the cause of the Constitution, the back bone of the Union, and the product and essence of the Declaration of Independence. "In taking this step Virginia respectfully suggests that she is in the exercise of her own absolute right. Seventy-three years- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 33 testify that Virginia had the right in 1788 to ratify the Consti tution and did it with the consent of all the other States; and that the right to enact involves the right to repeal. This is an undisputed and undisputable proposition. Therefore, aside from her expressed condition on entering the Union, Virginia has the absolute right to resume and exercise the powers delegated to the common agent of the States." It is now evident that the seceding States did not violate "the Constitution and laws." It is also evident that Mr. Lincoln either ignorantly or knowingly violated "the Constitution and laws." If he ignorantly violated them he is inexcusable. If he knowingly violated them he is doubly culpable. Even Mr. Adams' fatalism cannot excuse him. For if fatalism controlled the destiny of Lincoln, it controls the destiny of all of us; and we kno\v there is such a thing as responsibility and res}K>nsibility means free will action. We all know that Mr. Lincoln did not make known the clause and section and article of the Constitution investing him with the power to call forth "the militia of the several 'States'" to invade other States. It is also well known that no defender of Lincoln's conduct, however ardent he may be, has placed his finger upon such a clause and such a section in the Constitution. It is therefore mathematically conclushe that no such clause Ss to be found in the Constitution. If no such clause can be found in the Constitution what was his act but revolutionary? There is another item in President Lincoln's proclamation which shows that he was either supremely ignorant of the mag nitude of the task* Before him, or that he was deeply conscious that the North was not yet sufficiently unified to follow where he was leading. \Ve refer to the fact that only seventy-five thousand men, were called out, and these for only three months. Compare this handful of men to the millions that marched to the field of blood: compare the three short months to the more than four long eventful years of terrible war. When you have done this tell us. do you attribute it to his ignorance of the mag nitude of the task? This perhaps would somewhat ameliorate the crime of causing enough men to fall in battle to make a line of single file more than four hundred miles long, or a line of graves 364 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH each in touch with the other more than one-third the distance around the world. Perhaps he comprehended the magnitude of the task, and was thoroughly convinced that the North was not yet ready to second such a hazardous undertaking. If so, may he not have rea soned thus: When troops are once in the field and war has actual ly begun the war spirit will be aflame, and the number can be increased indefinitely? The secession of Virginia, on the 17th of April was followed by that of North Carolina on the 2nd day of May, Arkansas on the 6th of May, and Tennessee on the 8th of June. Thus Uncoln by this first call for troops forced four other States out of the Union, and then declared them in rebellion. These States were driven to the necessity of cfloosing between secession and taking up arms against their countrymen for exercising a right which neither they nor their countrymen had ever doubted to be their Constitutional privilege. On the.4th of July, 1861. Mr. Lincoln in his message to Con gress convened in extra session, said: "It is thus seen that the assault upon the reduction of Fort Sumter was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part o.f the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them. They knew--they were expressly notified--that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which would, on that occasion, be attempted unless by resisting so much, should provoke more." Who can read this message and not know that every word was intended to inflame the North. "They knew" indeed. Yes, they knew just as they knew "Faith fully kept. Wait and see." "They were expressly notified" indeed. Yes, "they were expressly noti fied," just as they were that "Fort Sumter would be evacuated b'efore a letter could go" to Montgomery. Had thev not been told bv Mr. Lincoln this and that more than a dozen times in less than a month, and more than a dozen times deceived? If noNV Mr. Lincoln was not believed whose fault was it? This was an official disguise of fact intended for the North. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 385 If Mr. Lincoln contemplated conciliatory measures, as he in timates in this message, why did he not relieve the hunger of those brave men on a conciliatory basis, t>y evacuating the fort as he published to the world, on the 14th of March, he would do? If those brave men were really hungry who but Lincoln and his advisers were to blame? These men were kept in that fort against the advice of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army, against the judgment of Lincoln's wisest coun selors, and against the earnest protest of the Commander of the garrison. Who was at fault? "The assault upon and the reduction of Fort Sumter was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the assailants"-- another disguise of fact to inflame the North. Capt. Fox in his report flatly contradicts Mr. Lincoln when he informs us that the Commander of the Pawnee refused, with out orders from a superior officer, to enter the Charleston har bor to inaugurate war." That means that Capt Fox had "confidential orders" to enter that harbor. And confidential orders meant secret orders. But it is known this commander refused ta obey an Inferior officer on the ground that it meant the inauguration of 7ir. Horace, Greely also flatly contradicts Mr. Lincoln. His tes timony, like that of Capt. Fox, is of the very strongest kind. All know him to have been an extreme partisan and a warm and generous supporter of Mr. Lincoln for President Mr. Greely says "Whether the bombardment and reduction of Fort Sumter shall or shall not be justified by posterity it is clear that the Confederacy had no alternative but its own destruc tion." Mr. Thorpe and other high Northern authorities are respon sible for the statement that Mr. Lincoln on the 28th of March 1861, definitely decided to coerce the South, and immediately "is sued confidential orders." Yet Mr. Lincoln gravely and offi cially tells the world "the assault upon and the reduction of Fort Sumter was not in self-defense.' ' Lincoln pretended that his acts were sustained by the Con stitution. It was pretense and nothing-more. This is so evi dent that he stands "solitary and alone" in claiming the Consti- 366 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH tution as his support. No creditable historian has dared to de fend him on Constitutional grounds. Hence Francis Newton Thorpe, Chas. Francis Adams, John W. Draper, M. D., LL D. of the University of New York, and others of equal rank, have sought to defend Mr. Lincoln by other means. They know that the Constitution stands an eternal witness in testimony against him. In another connection we have already quoted Mr. Thorpe and Mr. Adams as witnesses on this point. We therefore, for the present, content ourselves with the testimony of the scholarly Dr. Draper, as given by him in his "The Civil War in Ameri ca," page 2-5; "There is a political force in ideas which silently renders protestations, provisions and guarantees, no matter in what faith they have been given, of no avail, and which makes Constitutions obsolete. Against the uncontrolable growth of the anti-slavery idea the South was forced to contend." We have italicized these words of Dr. Draper to stress their significance He boldly asserts that the Amerciari Constitution was rendered "obsolete" by the force of "the anti-slavery idea" in the Sixties. If rendered obsolete was it not by usurpation? In spite of all "force of ideas could it be anything else but usur pation?" If usurpation, was it less than treason Could it be possible to render the Supreme law of any land obsolete by the mere "force of ideas" and ?t not be treason? If treason, by what right did that treason cloak itself officially in the garb of the Constitution and strut before the world as the bona fide Con stitution itself? Treason is doubly treason when it turns saint and personifies the Supreme law. Treason is doubly treason, when clothed in the robes of State and seated on the throne of power, it curses, condemns and murders the friends of the Constitution who still believe that Supreme law is yet in force. If the Constitution, in the Sixties, was rendered obsolete by "the force of ideas" or in any other way, why was it not known? Why was it not so proclaimed? On the contrary, the Consti tution was declared to be of force. If of force it was not obso lete. If not obsolete no logic can make its violation anything other than treason. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 367 Observe how emphatic, how strong, how sweeping is this as sertion: "No matter in what faith they may have been given.'* The special attention of the impartial historian is called to these remarkable words of Dr. Draper. It is the North's best defence. It is their only defence. Two great sections of a common conntry had sworn, of their own free choice, eternal fidelity to a com mon Constitution. The weaker of the two sections was earnest ly and self-sacrificingly faithful to its oath, even unto death. The stronger of the two, assuming to be justified by "the force of ideas," declared that Constitution to be annulled, "obsolete," and yet in its sacred name asserted that the weaker, or Constitutionabiding section had outraged it, and were "conspirators," "trai tors" and "rebels." Were ever wrongs more wrong than this? Will not an impartial future do this noble, this brave, this Con stitutional weaker section full justice? Note again that Dr. Draper says, "Against the uncontrollable growth of the anti-slavery idea the South was forced to con tend." If "forced to contend" how could she be the aggressor? If not the aggressor how could she be responsible for the war, and the rain of tears and the rivers of blood shed in that war? The time is near at hand when the South will stand exhonorated and vindicated before the bar of the world. When this shall have been done her praises will not be limited to a half, or even a full century, but they will endure the full circle of time and "the eternal years" shall be hers. ABSOLUTISM. An unconstitutional platform called for an unconstitutional policy; an unconstitutional policy for an unconstitutional coercion; an unconstitutional coercion for an unconstitutional war; and an unconstitutional war for an unconstitutional Des potism-Absolutism. Neither Turkish, nor Persian, nor Rus sian, nor any other despot exercised mere absolute authority than did Lincoln during THE CIVIL WAR. Authority, uncontroll ed and unlimited by either men, or Constitution, or law, was en forced by him at will. For 73 years of this American Republic of independent States the three equal and all-important Departments of Government 368 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH respected the rights of each other, each exercising authority within its own prescribed limits. It remained for Abraham Lincoln, on ascending the throne of power in 1861, to render "obsolete" both the Constitution and laws, and exert a dicta torship over the other two equal departments of Government, over the Government itself, over the States, and over the people at large. Having created the conditions, he made them an ex cuse for the exercise of an unbridled despotism. It was not against the Constitution and laws of the Union of the States the South rebelled, but against the plain and avowed violations of that Constitution, and those laws. In this sense and this sense only, the people of the South were true rebels, and as such they glory in the appellation. The first arbitrary act of Lincoln's administration was the rendering null and void the decision of the Supreme Court, de claring slaves to be property, hence could rightfully be ad mitted into the common territories. He next repealed unconsti tutionally the the writ of Habeus Corpus, and assumed the right to declare war and raise troops, thus violating these plain words of the Constitution: "Congress shall have power to declare war." ("Art. 4, Sec. 4), and "to raise and support armies." (Art. 1, Sec. 8). One unconstitutional step invited another and still another, till no despot exercised more absolute authority than did the Presi dent of this great and free Republic, boastful of its free institu tions and its liberties. When Rome would destroy Carthage, her sinning but repentant tributary province, she first demanded as hostages, 300 children of the best families of the doomed city. She next by her fair promises persuaded the inhabitants to sur render all their arms of war. She then cruelly declared her purpose to raze Carthage to the ground, and render it fit only for the plowshare. When Lincoln would become the absolute dictator to the sov ereign State of Maryland (not the Province of Maryland) he wrote in friendly terms to Governor Hicks and Mayor Brown of Baltimore, on the 20th of April, saying "For the future troops must be brought here, but I make no point of bringing them through Baltimore." On the very next day he invited Mayor RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 369 Brown arid other influential citizens of Baltimore to visit him in Washington for an interview. This interview was of a most' friendly character and was held in the presecne of the Cabinet and Gen. Scott. In reporting this interview the Mayor used these words: "The protection of Washington, he (the President) assever ated with great earnestness, was the sole object of concentrating troops there, and he protested that none of the troops brought through Maryland were intended for any purposes hostile to the State or aggression against the Southern States..... ..He called on Gen. Scott for his opinion, which the General gave at great length, to the effect that troops might be brought through Maryland without going through Baltimore... .The interview terminated with the distinct assurance, on the part of the Presi dent, that no more troops would be sent through Baltimore, un less obstructed in their transit in other directions, and with the understanding that the city authorities should do their best to restrain their own people. "The Mayor and his companions availed themselves of the' President's full discussion of the questoins of the day to urge upon him respectfully, but in the most earnest manner, a course of policy which would give peace to the country, and the with drawal of all orders contemplating the passage of any troops through any part of Maryland." This interview, deceptive and false as to the purpose of the Administration, occurred on the 21st of April, 1861. On the 5th of May, Gen. Butler at the head of the United States troops, took possession of the Relay House at the junction of the Wash ington and Baltimore and Ohio Railrad. Eight days later he occupied Federal Hill; and Baltimore was subjected to military rule. Gen. Btitler immediately issued a proclamation declaring his purpose and his authority. In it were these words: "All manufacturers of arms and munitions of war are hereby-request ed to report to me forthwith so that the lawfulnses of their oc cupations may be known and understood, and all misconstruc tions of their doings avoided." He next demanded of the city all the arms stored in her ware house. The police refused to obey this order without authority 370 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH from the Police Commissioners. Gen. Butler informed the Po-' lice Commissioners that his demand was by order of the Presi dent. The arms were surrendered, but under protest. They were sent to Fort McHenry. Thus the city of Baltimore was unarmed. The next step was to disarm the private citizens. George P. Kane, the City Mar shal, was arrested at his home and sent to Fort McHenry. In his stead a Provost Marshal was appointed by Gen. Banks. A protest was entered by the Mayor and Police Commissioners against the suspension of their functions, saying, "They can not consistently with their views of official duty and of the obli gations of their oaths of office, recognize the right of any of the officers and men of the police force, as such, to receive orders or directions from any other authority than from this Board; and that, in the opinion of this Board, the forcible suspension fo their functions suspends at the same time the active- opera tions of the police law." (The Baltimore American, June 8, 1861). The Provost-Marshal at once began the search of private houses, and arms of every description were seized. Now that both city and private citizens were thus disarmed, Gen. Banks announced, on 1st of July, "In pursuance of orders issued from headquarters at Washington...... I have arrested, and do detain in the custody of the United States the late mem bers of the Police Board--Messrs. Chas. Howard, Wm. H. Gatchell, Chas. D. Hinks, and John W. Davis." This arbitrary and despotic act was followed by the arrest of twenty members of the Maryland Legislature, among them the Hon. S. Teacle Wallis, who, as a member of the Committee in the Legislature to whom the memorial of the Police Commis sioners, arrested in Baltimore, was referred, reported that the arrest was "unconstitutional," and "appealed in the most earnest manner, to the whole people of the country of all parties, sec tions, and opinions to take warnings by the usurpations mention ed, and come to the rescue of the free institutions of the coun try." (N. Y. World, Aug. 6, 1867). For this presumptious ap peal Wallis, also found lodging in Fort McHenry. For intro ducing in the House of Congress a resolution in the interest of peace, Congressman Henry May of Mayrland, was also lodged RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 371 in this convenient fort. So were many other leading citizens of the State without charge, without law, or the form of law. Compare Rome's act with that of Lincoln, and tell us which was the more despotic, the more cruel and unjust! Carthage had enraged her imperial mistress by waging a just war, with out Rome's consent, against her ally, Numidia. The City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland had angered Lincoln by disputing his constitutional right to send troops through the city and State without the State's consent. Rome's first step in sub jugating and punishing Carthage was a demand for 300 children of the best Carthaginian families as hostages. Carthage knew Rome to be supreme in power, autocratic and cruel and relent less, and complied with the exacting terms, hoping thereby to rest in security. Lincoln's first step was one of apparent friendship and great respect for the rights of Maryland, protesting that "none of the troops brought through Maryland were intended for any purposes hostile to the State, or aggression against the South ern States." Maryland, not knowing the imperial autocrat char acter of the free American republic in free North America, was greatly pacified by the very cordial interview and very friendly assurance of Lincoln and his Cabinet. The Carthaginians said to Rome, "Take our children treat them well, and give us a pol icy of peace." The distinguished citizens of Maryland said sub stantially to Lincoln and his Cabinet, "Your assurances are most gratifying, and because of your very friendly character we are bold to respectfully, but most earnestly beg of you a course of policy that will give peace to the entire country; and to this end that you will not send any troops through any part of Maryland." Rome's next step was a formal but friendly request for all the arms of Sparta to be delivered into her possession. Sparta for the sake of peace, and of assuring Rome of her sincerity and fidelity, granted her demand. Lincoln's next step was neither formal nor friendly. It was the quick military step of the despot --the forceful possession of the Relay House, a strategic point from which other and more effective steps could be taken in rapid succession. Rome's next step was to expose the punitive hand of the despot. Lincoln's next step was to expose the de spotic and punishing arm of an absolute ruler. Federal Hill was 372 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH occupied by the Military, and with it the city. The Chief of the Police was arrested, deposed, and imprisoned. A ProvostM'arshal took his place, and assumed his duties. The city was proclaimed under military rule by order of the President. The Mayor, Police Commissioners and prominent citizens were ar rested and thrown into prison. All this was the result of false pledges, treachery and absolutism. Rome possessed Carthage by bad faith and a relentless exercise of absolute power. Lin coln possessed the State of Maryland by the same means. To which empire belongs the greater condemnation? As if encouraged by the success "of his ruthless acts and un moved by the loud mutterings of discontent heard throughout all sections of the country, Lincoln and his Cabinet did not stop here. They not only arrested eno'.igh of Maryland's Legisla ture to prevent a quorum, but made similar arrests in Missouri and Kentucky; also in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Vermount and Maine. In additoin to these, the editor of the New York Daily News was arrested for denouncing the arbitrary acts of the administration as unconstitutional. To denounce any act of the Administration was to invite arrest and imprisonment in Fort McHenry, or one of the forts. "The Civil War from a Northern Standpoint" has these sig nificant words: "Able lawyers, warm supporters of the Govern ment questioned the Constitutionality of the President's course, "The Civil War Fifty Years Ago To-Day" (August 22, 1861) also says: "A wave of disloyalty was sweeping the country." The same writer adds, "The anti-war papers were confined by no means to small country sheets, such as that of Haverhill, Mass., but numbered some of the largest journals in the princi ple cities." All were silenced. "Coincident with this castigation of the press were many arrests, charged with disloyalty and treason, and 50 years ago to-day at this time, the fortresses of the North were rapidly filling with State prisoners.... Prison ers, thus arrested, were styled 'prisoners of State,' or political prisoners," the implied charage against them being that they in tended giving aid and comfort to the enemy." How ruthless, how arbitrary, how despotic were these usurpations! RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 373 The same writer says, "One arrest of this character illus trates the method employed in nearly all. On August the 14th the New York police received a dispatch from the Secretary of War, ordering the arrest of Robert Muir, who was expecting to depart for Europe that day on the steamer Africa, of the Cunard line. "Detectives sent to the pier found that Mr. Muir was already on board the ship. One of them approaching near enough to overhear his conversations, and satisfying himself he had found his man, said: 'Is your name Mr. Robert Muir?' Receiving an affirmative answer, the detective said, 'Will you be kind enough to step out on the deck? There is a gentleman there who wishes to say a word to you.' After a few other explanatory words, the writer continues: " 'At this announcement,' states a reporter. 'Muir seemed taken aback, but soon remarked that he would not go; that he was on board a British ship; that he was a British subject, and claimed the protection of the British flag." He was arrested--illegally and arbitrarily arrested--and thrown into "Fort Lafayette by an order from Washington. And his baggage was seized." He had important letters, intended for his personal benefit in Europe. "Many of his letters were copied and some of them printed in the New York newspapers." Remember that the writer of "The Civil War Fifty Years Ago To-Day" referring to the 22nd of Auguts 1861, says : "The implied charge against them, being that they intended giz"hig aid and comfort to the enemy." Referring to the 27th of August, 1861, he says of Mr. Seward: "He was quoted as say ing that he had only to tap a bell on his desk to cause the arrest of any person he might designate... .Suspicion was all that was required. Then came the arrest--sudden, genreally secret, often at night--and removal to one of the several prisons--Fort McHenry at Baltimore, Fort Lafayette in the New York harbor. Fort Warren at Boston. Once taken, there was no appeal, and in the prison the man might stay until the Secretary saw fit to release him." All this in free America! All this, because the South and prominent men in all the States preferred the Fathers' construction of the Constitution to that of Abraham Lincoln! 374 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH "The American Bastile" is the very appropriate and significant title given Fort Lafayette in the New York harbor. It takes its name from the unjustifia ble tyranny which is comparable only to the acts of the despotic monarchs of France. Let us compare the bastiles--that of France and that of North America--of imperial France and of free North America. The Bastile of France was not built for a State prison; nor was that of free America. The Bastile of France was strongly fortified, but it was not as impregnable as that of America. The Bastile of France had forty rooms in its eight towers, besides a number of basement rooms. The prisoners were kept partly in the towers and partly in the basement. The American Bastile had only six rooms. Prisoners were kept in all these. The ca pacity of the French Bastile was "70 or 80 prisoners," not an average of two to a room. One hundred and seventeen (117) prisoners were actually crowded into the six rooms of the Amer ican Bastile, an average of nineteen and one-half (19 1-2) to a room. The writer is not informed as to how well the bastile of France was lighted, but he is informed that four rooms of the American Bastile "were casemated, low-roofted, brick-floored, 14 by 22 feet inside, with two very small slots in the walls for windows and no ventilation when the door is closed." "These rooms had each from nine to fifteen occupants--at times even more--until they almost equalled the Black Hole of Calcutta." Another room in the American Bastile was 68 ft. by 22 ft. In this room were "thirty-eight (38) people, 38 beds, three washstands, five 32-pound guns and their carriages, so that elbow room was at a premium." "To light this room by day were five port holes and two doors, each port hole being 18 inches by 24 inches. The illumination at night consisted of three candles, divided among 38 persons." "The water was bad, fre quently full of small tadpoles." In both bastiles "the medical attention was insufficient." In the French Bastile the prisoners "rarely consisted of per sons of lower ranks, or such as were guilty of actual crimes, but of those who were sacrificed to political despotism, Court intrigue BICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 375 and ecclesiastical tyranny--Among these were noblemen, authors, savons, priests, and publishers." In the Ameriacn Bastile the prisoners were "not guilty of actual crimes" but consisted of persons of unimpeachable characters in all the walks of life, "who were sacrificed to political despotism" and executive "intrigue." The Hon. Lawrence Langston, member of the Maryland Legis lature, and incarcerated in Fort Lafayette in September 1861, thus testifies: "The prisoners are those who have been or are now governors, foreign ministers, members of Congress, of different legislatures, Mayors, Police Commissioners, Officers of the army from col onel to lieutenants, of the Navy of all grades, doctors, lawyers, farmers, merchants, editors, sailors and private oarsmen." What matchless despotism is this? Of what parentage was it born? It was not the legitimate child of the American Consti tution, nor of the American Declaration of Independence. It was not born of American Liberty, nor of American institu tions. It is the child of a false "Higher Law" and a false "Con stitution," a false necessity. In both the French and the American bastiles "the discipline and police regulations were of the strictest kind." Both were regarded with mingled feelings of awe and horror. Once with in the walls of either all hope seemed left behind. Bancroft tells us in his "Life of Seward," that when a prisoner "desired to send for an attorney he was informed that attorneys were entirely excluded, and the prisoner who sought their aid would greatly prejudice his case........If a prisoner wrote a personal letter to the Secretary the letter was usually filed. A second, third, or fourth petition for liberty was usually sent to the Department, but with no result save that the materials for study of history or human nature was enlarged." Why were attorneys excluded? To admit them would be to advertise the horrors of the American Bastile to the world. This could not be. Crime stalks in the night. The utmost secrecy alike was maintained in both Bastiles. "To even' letter" in the American Bastile, "even if only a note asking for soap or shoes, the prisoners were required to add: "It is my desire that this letter or any part of it shall not be published in 37(5 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH any newspaper." All this in our own free America! America never had but two despotisms--that of the war period and that of the Reconstruction period. It is difficult to tell which was the greater of the two. When we read of the horrors of Fort Lafayette, Fort McHenry, and Fort Lawrence is it any wonder that the historian tells us, "Secretary Seward and the President were alike denounced as tyrants more dreadful than darkest Russia had known, and the principal, Fort Lafayette, was termed 'the Bastile of North America ?'" Nothing now remains of the Bastile of France but a bronze column to mark its site. It was razed to the ground on the 14th of July by 12,000 indignant citizens, and its seven prisoners set free. The Bastile of North America, rechristened to the cause of Liberty, still stands in the New York harbor, as a perpetual witness to deeds of awe and horror indellibly written by the finger of despotism upon the dark and "retributive page of his tory." The angry Paris mob demolished the structure of the Bastile of France, but no mob, no violence can erase from the page of history the just retribution it receives at the hands of all cominggenerations. The North American Bastile in the future, may stand a mighty fortress to eternal liberty--God grant that it may; --but the cruel hand of the despot has marred its form, and written a dark page of awe and terror in its history that will forever be a black record of shame amid its glorious deeds of human rights and human liberty. Upon what ground did this unbridled, this audaciuos despotism leap all constitutional limits, and write so disgraceful a page of awe and terror and blood and agony in the book of American history? The defenders and applauders of this rank despotism have given a false answer to this question--false to sacred pledges, false to sacred ties,--ties binding equal States into a Union of their own free choice, on equal terms-; an answer false to these terms; and therefore an answer false and traitorous to the compact that bound the several States together. CHAPTER XXVm. AN EFFORT TO UNITE THE NORTH, RETAIN THE BORDER STATES, AND RECON CILE THE FOREIGN NATIONS: THE TRENT AFFAIR. At first the gravity of the situation did not appeal either to Lincoln or his Cabinet. Although the problems of the hour were most momentous, yet, as we are informed by Edward Everett Hale, Jr., (American Statesman--VVm. H. Seward), that "at first Seward was so unwilling to acknowledge the possibility of war that it is doubtful if he had been able to form a foreign policy." When war became a possibility the call for only 75,000 men for orily 90 days tells what Lincoln and his Cabinet thought of it. They attempted at first, to treat it as "a mere insurrection"--"a mere domestic affair," of little concern to the Government and" of no concern whatever to the Nations. But when it developed on a vast scale it became a war of pub lic concern,--a war that concerned all nations, for all nations had citizens in one or both sections, and more or less commer cial dealings with one or both. The South's cotton figured mightily to the alarm of the Administartion, for it was a product in which all nations had an interest. Lincoln and his Cabinet now looked with great alarm on the mighty struggle they had recklessly inagurated. They had denounced the South as efeminate and weak till they believed it, and far underrated her strength. With this introduction let us now glance at the beginning of Lincoln's administration and note his gradual encroachments upon Constitutional rights, and the search for winning issues. It was the 9th of March, 1861, just five days after Lincoln's in auguration, when an important Cabinet meeting was held. The momentous question for discussion was Fort Sumter. As we shall see, Lincoln had planned to make this fort one of the allimportant issues necessary to unite the North. He now urged SPT8 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH "the necessity of its reenforcemnet." Chase and Bates opposed the proposition. Mr. Seward said, "To make such an attempt would inaugurate civil war." Thus on the 9th of March, 1861, five to two of Lincoln's Cabinet voted for conciliation. Mr. Hale also says, "Mr. Seward would concede nothing outside the Con stitution. "Doubtless 5 to 2 is the ratio approximately repre senting the sentiment of the entire North at that time. The war sentiment had to be cultivated, and was cultivated. Lincoln was not disconcerted by this vote of his Cabinet. He quietly and shrewdly bided his time. As a politician he was an expert, and to his shrewdness were added some legal lore, great common sense, and a wonderful knowledge of human na ture He knew the United States had taken forceful possession of Fort Sumter, and that South Carolina honestly claimed it as her just and legal right. To his mind this state of affairs fur nished a fit opportunity for a clash between the two sections. He knew that by threats and tactful maneuvering of the Gov ernment forces the Confederacy could be made to fire on the fort. And that is just what he brought, about. What cared he about the legal questions invloved? Legal or illegal, it was immaterial to him. It would answer his purposes and that was enough. That this is true, hear what Edward Everett Hale, Jr., p. 278, says: "The news'of firing on Fort Sumter aroused the North to a passion of humiliation and anger and patriotism. Lincoln, it may be supposed, received it with resignation. He had prob ably foreseen its necessity. Necessary or not, the event had placed him in the position in which he desired to stand. The Government had been attacked. It must now appeal to all that were loyal to come to its rescue. Congress was summoned to assemble, and a call for troops was sent to every State." Thus by threats and shrewd maneuvers Lincoln inaugurated war, and laid the blame on the South. All the authorities in the world might say, "The party who rendered force necessary was the aggressor, and not the one who fired the first shot." What cared he for authorities! He now had the issue he had longed for--the issue that would unite his divided Cabinet, and unite and inflame to a red heat the divided North. He put in RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 379 motion a great wave of excitement that beat madly against every Northern shore, by summoning Congress to assemble, and call ing on all the States for troops. He thus magnified an act of self-defense on the part of the South into a most malignant at tack upon the Government. He declared with a trumpet blast that the war had begun, and all loyal citizens must now fly to its rescue, and Mr. Hale tells us the North was aroused to "a passion of humiliation and anger and patriotism." This impatient assembling of Congress with its mad wild warcry, heard through the press agitations, and from pulpit and fo rum, culminated in an unexampled display of "passion and anger but not of "patriotism." It was the unreasoning passion of the mob. Lincoln had brought about a crisis in which all had to decide one way or the other. In the North the war-cry was heard in every hamlet and home from the Atlantic to the Pa cific. In the South the war-cry in reply was heard from the At lantic to the Rio Grande and the Rockies. The forbearance of the South had tried Lincoln's patience. For the South had resolved not to fire on Fort Sumter except in a case of necessity. He was therefore compelled to declare it to be his purpose to reinforce this fort, and follow this declara tion with a great relief squadron instructed to provision and reinforce the fort. The hour designated as the time for giving the information as to its reinforcement was also the hour desig nated as the time for the arrival of the fleet in the harbor of Charleston. To the Confederacy it was a moment of urgency and expectation--urgency in hasty preparation for action, and ex pectation in the constantly looked for war fleet to hover about the walls of grim old Fort Sumter. Note the words: "He had probably foreseen its necessity," and "the event had placed him in the position in which he desired to stand." What mean the words "foreseen" and "desired" if they do not testify that he had planned for this very result? To desire without an effort to have that desire fulfilled would be equivalent to no desire at all. To foresee an event, impossible of occurrence without his Interference, is also absolute proof of his having planned it. Therefore it was deliberately planned; 380 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH and not without a purpose. That purpose was to create an is sue that would inflame and unite the North. The word "necessity" is also pregnant with meaning. It is conclusive proof that Lincoln had no issue that appealed to the great Northern masses: and that it was absolutelv necessary to work some device by which the uninformed and unsuspecting could be induced to take up arms. He could not appeal to the Constitution. Seward had said to attempt to reinforce this fort "would inaugurate civil war," and that he would take no step "outside the Constitution." Neither of these declarations was disputed. Thus the word "necessity" proves also that Lincoln's entire Cabinet agreed with Seward as to the Constitution. It is a bad cause that is under the "necessity" of abandoning in its de fence the great fundamental law of the Government, and manu facturing a side issue that appeals to "passion and anger." In reality there was no occasion for war. If Lincoln had not desired war he would not have found in Fort Sumter the occa sion for inaugurating war. In less than a half century since that great war the time has come when all high Constitutional authorities have swept Lincoln's shams to one side, and have declared that the South acted within her rights and within the bounds of her imperiled duty in firing on that fort. If Lincoln had been as true to the law as he was to his party platform there would have been no necessity for firing on Fort Sumter, no nec essity for disunion, no necessity For war. It was even proposed in that Cabinet meeting "to declare war against France and Spain and probably England." (Hale, p. 275). At this day the proposition seems very absurd. Yet Hale justifies it by saying, "The idea was that the pressure of foreign war would rally to the Union all the doubtful States and perhaps some of the seceding States or part of them." Such ignorance of the character of the Southern people is very wonder ful ! They seemed to have had as little conception of the mo tives that prompted the Southern States to withdraw from the Union as a baboon of the eclipse of the sun. Yet these were the dignitaries of the great American Republic in consultation as to the wisest policy for the good of the country! Their ignor ance was equaled only by their fanaticism on the question of RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 381 slavery. It may be possible, however, that these reasons were given as a mere blind. For Gideon Wells in his diary, 12th of August, 1862, speaks of the "bugaboo of a foreign war, a bug aboo which Sevvard well knew how to use." The Northern statesmen were by no means unanimous in the opinion that the Confederacy was not justified in firing on fort Sumter. Hence it was necessary to add another issue, that of representing "The South as a People Fighting For Slavery." It was a false issue, but what cared they for that? John R. Deering in "Lee And His Cause" says, "A recent official report shows that more than 80 per cent, of the Confederate Soldiers owned no slaves. Gen. Joe Johnston, second only to Lee in rank "never owned a slave," while Gen. Grant owned slaves up to the time of Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. Dr. Hunter McGuire, Gen. Stonewall Jackson's chief surgeon, testifies that both Lee and Jackson were opposed to slavery, and "were in fa vor of freeing all the slaves in the South," and "paying for them after our independence had been gained." It has been said of Gen. Loring that he freed 200 slaves before the war. How true this statement is we do not know. But it is certain that thou sands of Southerners would have freed their slaves had the proper conditions existed. It was Northern antagonism that de ferred the day when Southern slaves could have been freed with safety. If the South defended slavery it was because she could not defend her firesides, her legal and inherent rights, without de fending- that institution so closely associated with these rights. Mr. Hale does the South" a bit of justice when he says, "But the war for Union was not a war for fredeom from the North ern standpoint only. The South was also contending for free dom, for freedom to manage its own domestic affairs as it saw fit; and to the Southern mind the Union in trying to prevent their doing so was quite as much a tyrant as George III had been." This bit of justice from the pen of Edward Everett Hale, Jr., is but the echo of that unanimous voice that will in crease in volume as the ages roll. 382 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH It was urged in that Cabinet discussion that the agitation of slavery had brought about "a crisis that threatened the exist ence of the Union." They did not discuss where that agitation began. They did not discuss the question who were still adding fuel to the fires of that agitation. All men knew then, and all men now know that agitation was confined to the North exclu sively. If it was the agitation of slavery that threatened the existence of the Union it was this same agitation that inaug urated the war. Who then can deny the inevitable conclusion that the North began the war? If then the North began the war, with what hypocrisy was the charge of treason made against the South! The charge could not have been sustained even then, had it not come from the lungs of the Chief Magistrate. Lin coln was the representative of millions. When he opened his mouth it was the open mouth of millions. When he spoke it was the voice of millions--a voice as powerful as though millions of tongues had spoken. Its mighty volume filled the continent, entering every home and every mountain crevice. It was, there fore, the one voice of supreme dignity and power. Its utter ances, true or false, were received as the gospel truth. Before it all things sacred went down. Truth was crushed and justice dethroned. But while the South was not fighting, except indirectly, for the institution of slavery, it is of record in the plain stern lan guage of fact, that the North "fought for the freeing of the slaves and for that alone." Their claim was, therefore, the more plausible to the Northern masses, that the South was fighting for slavery, and for that alone. On the 26th day of September, 1861, in the midst of the gloom of defeat, Lincoln issued, at the unanimous request of Congress, a proclamation, calling upon the people to observe a day of "Pub lic Prayer, Humiliation and Fasting." .The chronicler of events significantly says: "It was wifh a militant rather than a chas tened spirit that most of the ministers of the North mounted their pulpits to deliver special sermons suggested by the President's proclamation. "The result was a great outpouring of eloquence against sla very, the greatest perhaps that had ever been known in one day BICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 383 since the agitation which resulted in war had begun... .Taken to gether these utterances showed how earnestly the Northern peo ple believed, as a whole, that the war was fought for the freeing of the slaves and for that alone. "Had some members of Congress who had voted for this fast day been able to foresee this deep combined utterance on the subject that the most adroit politicians of the North had sought to keep in the background, in the opening- of the war, there is little doubt that they would not have asked the President to give the ministers of the North an opportunity to express them selves on the great issues of the day." (The Civil War Fifty Years Ago To-Day). Note that the Northern ministers well knew what was the purpose of that war; and that their "utterances showed how earnestly the Northern people as a whole believed that the war was fought for the freeing of the slaves, and for that alone." Note too the deception practiced by "adroit politicians" in Con gress, seeking to keep the real issue "in the background." Lin coln and his Cabinet practiced the same deception. When deal ing with the border States "slavery was not to be interfered with." When dealing with the North and foreign governments "the war was against slavery." Could duplicity like this lift holy hands to high Heaven? Does God open the store house of his blessings in answer to prayers from the lips of deception ? Prayers without sincerity are never indorsed in heaven. On the part of the Northern ministers and Northern masses there was no insincerity. They could lift holy hands, but what of Lincoln and his Cabinet and the adroit politician in Congress? Thus it is clearly shown that the North was fighting to free the slaves of the South and "for that alone." Deeply conscious of this fact, they raised the false issue that "the South was fighting for slavery and that alone." In the early months of 1861 the Administration became greatly alarmed for fear of England's recognizing the Southern Confederacy. On May 25th Horace Greely said, "Nothing is more clear than that England will do nothing to give aid or comfort, or which has the appear ance of giving aid and comfort to a people fighting for slavery," showing how universally that false statement was received as 384 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH true without question. In order that this false cry might be as effective in Europe as in th'e Northern States the following distinguished private citizens were dispatched to England, viz: "Archibishop Hughes, the distinguished Roman Catholic Prelate of New York--whose position especially fitted him for such a mission in France,--Bishop McIIvaine of the Portestant Epis copal Church, and with them his own intimate friend, the veteran politician and editor, Thurlow Weed." But it was soon realized that the mere agitation of slavery even with the great excitement they had raised over Fort Sumter, was not enough. For even the North was divided on this issue and besides it might, lose them the border States. Mr. Hale says "the Southern party was influential in all the border States and how to strengthen the hands of the Union was a dif ficult problem. Therefore it was urged that the Administration, for the moment, should set aside the question of slavery," and take the definite position of "Maintaining the Union." "For two or three days after the firing on Fort Sumter the New York Tribune headed its war news as 'The Proslavery War.' Before the week was up, it became 'The War for the Un ion.'" (Hale). What rallying cry was this? Calhonn and Toombs and Yancey and Stephens and Davis and all the South to a man loved the Union. All the North to a man loved the Union. But the South loved the Union of the Constitution--the Union of the fathers. The North loved a Union disguised as that of the true, while in reality it was the Union of a plaftorm, rebuked by the decision of the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, and, therefore, a false Union. For three years the trumpet note of this highest judicial authority known to the Republic, had rung out its thunder peals in the name of the law that the Lincoln platform was rebellion against the Constitution and hence against the Government. How were the great Northern masses deceived by this false Union disguised as the true? Official sanction and official pro mulgation had been mighty factors in accomplishing this result. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 385 The hand of Despotism by its terrible work had also accomplish ed much by silencing all opposition. Then, too, this platform Union was kept in the silent background while the simple term "Union" and the simple term "Constitution" were mentioned in the same breath as one and inseparable. This linking them thus together was a master stroke. The uninformed and unsuspect ing1 took it for granted there could be but one thing called "the Union" and but one thing called "the Constitution." Their de ception was only equaled by their fervency. The Administration and Cabinet now had three great rallying issues--all false to fact but represented as true to fact: Fort Stintier, Slavery and the Union. They constituted the strings of the Government harp upon which Lincoln and his Cabinet played as it suited them with selected variations. As we have already intimated the least word that falls from the lips of the Chief Magistrate of a great Government receives the attention of listening millions. Hence in spite of the highest and best au thorities to the contrary, the Northern masses believed that the firing on Fort Sumter inaugurated the war; that the South de spised the Union of the Constitution; and was fighting simply to defend slavery. One of the variations on that wonderful harp of three strings was The Trent Affair. On a dark night in October, 1861, two Confederate envoys with their families and secretaries ran the blockade at Charles ton in the steamer Theodora, and arrived safely at Havana. These envoys were James Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana. At Havana they embarked on the British steamer Trent, which was destined for St. Thomas. Capt. Charles Wilkes commanding the United States frigate San Jacinto, was on the watch, and boarded the Trent between Havana and St. Thomas. He forcibly transferred Mason and Slidell with their secretaries to his own steamer. On the 15th of November, 1861, the San Jacinto halted at Fortress Monroe for coal, and the message flashed to the world that Mason and Slidell were prisoners aboard the San Jacinto which was going directly to New York. When Capt. Wilkes arrived at Xew York, he found orders await- 386 EICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH ing him from Washington to carry the prisoners to Boston and there incarcerate them in Fort Warren. Thus the Govern ment sanctioned the outrage. Thornton Kirkland Lothrop in his "William H. Seward," pages 324-325, says of this event: "By universal consent Wilkes be came at once a hero; the newspapers and people prized him as if he had won a great naval victory; he was feasted in Boston and honored in New York. The Secretary of the Navy, on re ceiving his report, wrote him: 'Especially do I congratulate you on the great public service you have rendered in the capture of the rebel commissioners... .Your conduct in seizing these public enemies was marked by intelligence, ability, decision and firm ness, and has the emphatic approval of this department.' The annual report of the 'Naval Department repeated and indorsed this approval, and when Congress met the House of Represen tatives voted Capt. Wilkes a gold medal for his good conduct in promptly arresting the rebel ambassadors." Mr. Wells says, "No man was more elated and jubilant than Seward at the capture of the emissaries, and that for a time he made no attempt to conceal his gratification and approval of the act of Wilkes." (Lothrop, p. 325). The biographers of Lincoln testify to the same fact. Mr. Lothrop continues: "Mr. Seward sent for McClellan when he first learned of the capture, and asked him what we could do if Great Britain made a peremp tory demand for Mason and Slidell, and the alternative was either surrender or war; that he was told in reply that if we went to war with England we must at once abandon all hope of keeping the South in the Union; and that he, therefore, said, "If the matter took that turn they must at once be given up." (page 327). Wilkes had violated international law, and offered an insult to a great nation. It has been said he was but obeying orders. It is certain unstinted praise was given him by Lincoln and his Cabinet and Congress. It is certain the event was magnified and applauded by the press and pulpit What meant the lauda tions of Congress? What the emphatic approval of the Navy Department ? What the exuberance of Seward ? What the earn est desires of Lincoln to retain the prisoners? What the great RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 387 display of head lines in the daily and weekly press? What the feastings of Wilkes in Boston? What the honors shown him in New York? What meant all these, and more, if not to inflame and enthuse the North? Lincoln and his entire Cabinet real ized that they had forcibly taken the commissioners from a neutral ship pursuing .. lawful and innocent voyage, and had given an affront to the British flag, and had violated inter-, national law. Ordinarily they would have rebuked Wilkes. But now they honored him instead. Why? Because they need ed a united North. They were turning every way for an ex citing event. This came in the very nick of time. The temp tation to use it was too great for resistance in this hour of neces sity." They decided to make the most of it and depend on diplomacy. They entertained a hope that they could settle the question by arbitration. But England's method of arbitration was in the shape of an ultimatum. This ultimatum left no alternative. It was "the surrender of the prisoners of war" and "an apology." The limit was "seven days." If not complied with in that time, Lord Lyons was instructed "to close the legation, remove the ar chives, notify the admiral of the British Atlantic fleet and Gov ernors of the North American and West Indian Colonies and return home." Now the situation changed. Exuberance left the Cabinet. Shame and humiliation took the place of exultation. Seward "shutting himself in his room and barring the door against all interruption, began at once" his apology and explanation. (Lothrop p. 330). The task was most difficult. The United States had been the foremost nation in resisting the right of "visit and search." She had made it the cause of the war of 1812. But yesterday, explicit commendations of the act reverberated in the halls of Congress, were heard in the meetings of the Cab inet, and were taken up by the press and repeated throughout all the North. What would the great American Premier now do? Both the war and the Navy Departments of Great Britain were active in making extensive preparations to enforce the demand. When the Secretary of State emerged from that room the haughty temper had disappeared. He held in his hand a 588 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH lengthy, and ingenius reply to England's demand. This he handed to Britain's minister at Washington City. To him he simply said: "The four persons in question are now held in military custody at Fort Warren, in the State of Massachu setts. They will be cheerfully liberated. Your Lordship will please indicate a time for receiving them." "How hath the mighty fallen!" The time was when this great American Republic refused to sanction aggression like this: when she demanded at the can non's mouth and in the smoke of battle "the right of friendly ships to pass unquestioned on the highway of nations;" when she demanded in a stern voice of war "the right of a neutral flag to protect everything not contraband of war." But that \\-as a time when arrogance and duplicity had not led the Gov ernment "into false positions and when the roar of the British lion could not make Americans retract what they had deliber ately avowed." The ultimatum of Great Britain was handed to Mr. Seward by Lord Lyons on the 23d of December, 1861. On the 25th of December Seward emerged from his seclusion and present ed his reply. He wrote to a friend, "It was considered on my presentation of it on the 25th and 26th of December. The Gov ernment when it took up the subject had no idea of the grounds upon which it would explain its action." Mr. Bates, the Attor ney General, says in his diary: "Seward read his proposed dis patch. It was examined and criticized by us all. . .All of us were impressed with the magnitude of the subject . . .1 urged the necessity of the case--that to go to war with England is to abandon all hope of suppressing the rebellion. . . The mari time superiority of Great Britain would sweep us from all the Southern waters. Our trade would be utterly ruined and our treasury bankrupt. There was great reluctance on the part of some members of the Cabinet--and even the" President him self, acknowledged these obvious truths; but all yielded to, and unanimously concurred in, Mr. Seward's letter. . . after some verbal and formal amendments." Mr. Chase wrote in his jour nal: "I give my adhesion, therefore, to the conclusion at which RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 389 the Secretary of State has arrived. It is gall and wormwood to me." "After Lincoln's death there was found among his papers the draft of a letter proposing arbitration as a solution of the difficulty. (Lothrop p. 335). Mr. Bates says: "That when the Cabinet separated on Christ mas day, after discussing Seward's dispatch the President said to him: 'Your answer states the reason why they ought to be given up; now I've a mind to try my hand at stating the rea sons why they ought not to be given up. . . Lincoln was con vinced, though against his will, that the result that Seward had reached could not be avoided." (Lothrop p. 336). It is evi dent the roar of the British lion, the movements of the Brit ish Xavy, the mobilizing of British soldiers on the border of Canada, had in them more convincing logic than any words of Seward. "I've a mind to try my hand," tells with what reluctance the President gave up the prisoners. "Especially do I congratulate you on the great public service you have rendered in the capture of the rebel commissioners," tells with what tardi ness the Navy Department surrendered them. "It is gall and wormwood to me," tells with what frowns Chase swallowed the dose. "No man was more elated and jubilant than Seward at the capture of the emissaries," tells how reluctantly the Secre tary of State bowed his head in consent. "Congress voted Capt. Wilkes a gold medal for his good conduct," shows with what humiliation the House of Representatives said, "We submit to the demands of the Lion." Thus no argument weighed with Congress, with Lincoln, with his Cabinet, but superior force. Right and wrong were interchangeable virtues when it suited their purpose. CHAPTER XXIX. THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. "Nothing short of Constitutional amendment could give free dom to our black millions"--Julian. "He (Lincoln) wisely em ployed a popular delusion in the salvation of his country."-- Julian. "The simple truth should now be told."--Julian. "Call ing the calf's tail a fifth leg does not make it a leg."--Lincoln. "I believe I have no right to do so."--Lincoln. "Any people anywhere have the right to rise up and shake off the existing Government.'--Lincoln. "I have no purpose to interfere with the institution of slavery within the States."--Lincoln. "It is startling to say Congress can free a slave within a State."-- Lincoln. "It is natural that the South should resist assaults upon her domestic institutions."--Ex-President Buchanan. "The whole civilized world could be outraged if private property should be generally confiscated, and private rights annulled."-- Chief Justice Marshall. "No one has declared that right (to hold slaves) in plainer terms than you have."--The Border States Representatives to Lincoln. "We complain that the Union cause has suffered and is suffering from mistaken deference to rebel slavery."--The Abolition Press. The year 1862 opened with the Federal Government in great gloom. Conferedate victories and Northern dissatisfaction had rendered the Administration desperate. Civilized warfare was abandoned. Vast military forces were turned into hordes of plunderers. The Constitution as construed by the courts was trampled in the. dust. All this and more was done under the plea of necessity, as if necessity could change a statute. Yet, there never was a time when the eleven seceding States had objected to the enforcement of the Constitution as con strued by the fathers and the courts; never a time when peace and fraternity were impossible under the execution of the Con stitution in its long accepted sense. Upon what ground then did imperious Necessity stand ? RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 391 All approaches by the administration upon unconstitutional ground were gradual. Hence there was no exception in the case of the Emancipation Proclamation. Morse says "it was an exercise of the President's war-power. They (Abolitionists) demanded the proclamation (Emancipation) ; and tke difficulty in the way of it was that Mr. Lincoln felt, and a great ma jority of Northern men were positive in the opinion, that such a proclamation at this time would not be an honest exercise of war-power, that it would be only falsely and colorably so-called." (Mbrse p. 91). Note in these words the absolute necessity of prudent ap proaches. If public opinion had remained as it then was the all-important proclamation would never have been issued, as "a war-measure." Why? Because at this time a great diffi culty interposed. It was no less than the important fact that "a great majority of Northern men opposed it." They not only opposed it, but they "were positive" in their opposition. But this difficulty gradually gave way under shrewd manipulation. Julian says, "Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment could at once give freedom to our black millions and make their re-enslavement impossible. . . All this is. now attested by very high authorities on international and constitutional law; and while it takes nothing from the glory of Mr. Lincoln as the great emancipator, it shows how wisely he employed a splendid popular delusion in the salvation of his country. . . The simple truth should now be told, and the honor due to Mr. Lincoln placed upon its just foundation." (p. 244). That all-important Constitutional amendment was not made during Lincoln's life. The Emancipation Proclamation was there fore without Constitutional authority. And Julian says Lincoln knew this. If Julian is to be believed what becomes of the sol emnity of Lincoln's message to his "dissatisfied countrymen: You have no oath registered in Heaven?" Note also the significance of the words, "All this is now at tested by very high authorities on Constitutional and Interna tional law." This Proclamation was therefore unconstitutional on the evidence of very high authorities. If this be true, does Mr. Julian appreciate the real meaning of "a popular delusion" 392 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH which Lincoln so effectively used ? According to Webster, delu sion is "a false representation." And what depended upon that false representation? Can a war founded on false representa tions, and justified on false representations, be rightfully declared a war based on truth and justice? Can this be true and yet take nothing from the glory of him who used it for the slaughter of an innocent people? The true nature of all glory is that of the principles upon which it is based. If it rest on false hood is it not the glory of false representations? If it rest on truth, is it not the glory of immortal truth, and as enduring as truth's eternal pillars? But there is another very damaging feature about this "splen did popular delusion." It was not nation-wide. It was con fined exclusively to the North. Can the ruler of a great coun try justify the use of a popular delusoin limited entirely to one of the two sections of that country as a basis of a righteous war against the other? If not, was the war justifiable? How is it that such a war takes nothing from the glory of that ruler? Does not Mr. Julian confess that this delusion of the North, however "splendid and popular," was not above reproach when he declares "the simple truth should now be told?" Now after forty years of false testimony?--now after having been baptized in fratricidal blood ?--now after having drained the deluded sec tion of $8,000,000,000 in treasure, and of the lives of hundreds of thousands of its best citizens. If Mr. Julian will place an estimate upon his own life, and then multiply that sum by the number of all that silent army asleep on the tented field of blood, he will realize that the cost of that war in treasure will be but as a drop to the vast ocean, to the loss in both treasure and lives it brought to either section. If deceptions, or misleadings, or "false representations" con stitute true fidelity and true glory they are virtues worthy to be practiced by the good and true. They are exalting to character. They deserve to be honored and immortalized. But who dig nifies the^i rs virtues? Who thinks they exalt human charac ter? If they are not virtues, when Lincoln flew from the sacred precincts of the Constitution and sought shelter under the shield RICHAKDSO1PS DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 393 of that "splendid popular delusion" of the North, was he true to that "sacred oath" of his registered in the Court of Heaven? When in the name of that same splendid popular delusion of the North he denounced the undeluded South as "traitors" and "conspirators," was he not doubly deceptive and doubly untrue to that sacred oath registered so high? When we consider that these denunciations of the undeluded South were proclaimed as truth to all the civilized world in the name of the Constitution of the land, what shall be thought of the enormity of that splendid popular delusion? The writer confesses he hesitates to pen these just conclusions because they are so severe, but he finds his justification in the serious facts themselves, and in the knowledge that these and all their kin dred denunciations were applied in the Sixties and long after wards to his beloved South. We are writing at a time (April 20, 1912) when the whole civilized world is in mourning because of the destruction of the great Titanic. The more than 1,500 souls that found graves many fathoms deep in the wide Atlantic bear no comparison to the mighty host of brave hearts that sank into the shallow graves under the stroke of that splendid popular delusion of the North. The destruction of that giant of the seas by the noise less, but irresistible march of the huge iceberg bears no com parison to the great destruction of cities and towns and villages and homes and fields and the ebbings of human lives on the field of strife. Some one is responsible for every delusion. Many delusions are harmless. But a delusion so ruinous in its results, and so vast in extent as to cover the greater section of this entire North American Republic, in the hands of a wily politician becomes a mighty engine of destruction indeed. Julian says. "Lincoln used this splendid popular delusion in the salvation of his country." He therefore was familiar with its existence. He knew its origin; the pap that gave it suck; the home in which it was reared, and the playground on which it sported. He knew it nursed on unconstitutional milk; fed on unconstitutional meat; breathed unconstitutional air; wore unconstitutional gar ments: was educated in unconstitutional schools; buckled on un- 394 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH constitutional sword; and waged an unconstitutional war against a Constitutional South. Had the sword of that Northern delusion been drawn against any people less conservative than the very conservative South, there would have been great danger of the wreck of the Gov ernment and the substitution in its stead of a despotism of which the three American Bastiles are a type. It was the good sense of the Southern people and their love of contented and happy homes that definitely decided the issues of war settled when their immortal Lee surrendered his sword at Appomatox. It was their high state of civilization that made them so appre ciative of stable government as to endure the wrongs and insults of the Reconstruction period. It was their conservatism in this trying hour that saved the wreck of the Constitution and pre served it with comparatively few changes from the vortex of the Revolution. "A splendid popular delusion may be fanatical. It was fanat ical. But conservatism is never fanatical. Delusion knows only false representations, dishonor and despotism. No oaths can bind it. No pleas for justice can restrain it. All it dreads are hard blows. These the South gave till her serried ranks had been thinned out to mere picket lines, till her homes were in ashes, and her granaries were empty, and the remnant of her con servative sons, still unconquered and unterrified, decided that to prolong the war would be madness. Then, and not till then, did they make honorable terms and surrender their.arms. But they were heroes still . Not a cringing knee did they bend. Each stood erect, every inch a gentleman, every inch a soldier, as fearless and as brave as when their banners waved in triumph over their victorious legions. Unconquered and unconquerable, they were sublime in the midst of their misfortunes. So terri ble had been their blows that they were dreaded still. Even little Alex Stephens was incarcerated for fear he would yet head a rebellion. Delusion never feels safe even when victorious. It fears its own tactics--its own shadow. It is a species of wrong, and wrong is never contented, never happy, never safe, never brave. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 395 Conservatism is never more conservative than when standing in the midst of the ashes of her once splendid possessions with head erect and eyes intent on the future. This was the conserva tism of the South. It now bent its energies, so much dreaded in war, to the problems of peace. The same sublime spirit that led the sons of the South" to resist unconstitutional encroach ments upon their rights now bade them turn their energies to rebuilding their devastated homes, and saving what they could of the Constitution for which they had shed their richest blood with a daring and a bravery that immortalized their heroism, and attested their sincerity in the righteousness of their cause. As soldiers they were matchless in their efforts to preserve un impaired the Constitution, their priceless heritage. As citizens in time of peace, they were matchless in rebuilding their demol ished homes, restoring their devastated fields, refilling their empty granaries and re-establishing a civilization that challenges comparison--a new civilization whose prosperity and splendor promise a future civilization more prosperous and more resplend ent still. The South is justly proud of her heroes in war and in peace. They are equaled only by the South's heroines. These suffered not less in time of war than did her sons. The trial of brave hearts is not found alone in the terrors of battle. It is also found in the quiet home where the husband (house-band) or the noble son is absent, confronting the foe on the tented field. There is a heart-pain in such a home that surpasses in intensity any that the missiles of war can give. These heart-pangs the wom en of the South endured for four long years with a devotion and a heroism unexcelled even by that of their husbands, sons, brothers and sweethearts on the field of battle. When the warcloud had gone, and the duties of peace called the brave remnant of the battle-scarred to noble effort, again the daughters of the South stood by their sides with hearts of courage and examples of inspiration that challenged the admiration of the world. Such heroes and heroines were and are and ever will be incapable of "treason" and "rebellion." The only perfect man was derided as an imposter and was crucified. The only loyal section of the Union was denounced as "conspirators," and was 396 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH robbed and murdered. The once hated and abused Christ is now the one resplendent star in all the firmament. It is too much to expect that the once hated and abused South will IP. time become the one resplendent star in the political firmament of all America? "Truth crushed to earth will rise again," and in her resurrected life will triumph over "Delusion" and error. When this shall have been done, the South will claim her own immortal names and her own immortal principles. But it is said upon the very highest authority that truth is established "in the mouth of two or three witnesses." Hence to the testimony of Julian we add that of others. We there fore call Abraham Lincoln to the stand. In the House of Con gress in 1848, he said: "Any people anywhere have the right to rise up and throw off the existing government and establish one of their own." In 1861, he said: "I have no purpose, di rectly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so"--plain words incapable of misconstruction. We now have from Lincoln's own lips the confession that the Constitution, the Supreme Law, did not confer on him the power to abolish slavery in the States. We have from a much higher authority, even the Supreme Court, that he did not have the authority to interfere with it in the Territories. We have on the unimpeachable authority of history that he did claim the right to interfere with it in the Territories. The question, there fore, is this: Which is the greater authority, Lincoln or the Supreme Court? Whose decision does the Constitution, the one voice of all the States, recognize as supreme? We next introduce President Buchanan on the authority of James S. Wadsworth in "Recollections of President Lincoln ami His Administration" (p. 33-L. E. Chittenden). In Mr. Wadsworth's own words in reference to an official call made on the President by the Peace Conference, Feb. 7, 1861, we have: "It was very painful to see him (the President) throw his arms around the neck of one stranger after another, and with streaming eyes, beg of him to yield anything to save his coun try from bloody fratricidal war. This appeared to be his favor ite phrase. He used it many times. He had not one word of RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 397 condemnation for disunion, secession or treason. He appeared to look upon the South as a deeply injured party, to which the North owed apology and promise of better conduct in the fu ture. It was natural that the South should resist assaults upon her domestic institutions, he said, and that she demand, if not indemnity, at least security for the future. That security the conference could give. By consenting to the amendments to the Constitution which the South demanded, because they were indispensable to satisfy the Southern people, the Conference could give peace to a distracted country, and save the Union." We next call to the stand "a great cloud of witnesses" that throng the great national highway, reaching from the adoption of the Constitution by the eleven States, all the way to the 4th of July, 1861. Among these witnesses are all the Presidents, including Lincoln. With these stand such illustrious names as Jay and Hamilton and Marshall and a mighty host of other distinguished patriots and statesmen and jurists of the truly great of all the professions. All these are unanimous in one verdict: That no President had the right to interfere with the institu tion of slaver}- in the States. Of all the Presidents, Lincoln stands "solitary and alone" in asserting the right to interfere with this institution in the Territories, the common property of all the States alike, in the same sense, on equal terms with equal privileges and equal rights: and almost alone among the truly great and illustrious of his day. We now call to the front still another most important wit ness. It is no less than "The Opening of the Twentieth Cen tury." Today, if the enlightened sentiment of the North and the world should be expressed in exact words it would read somewhat like this: "The war was inaugurated by the North on an unconstitutional basis, fought on an unconstitutional basis, and defended on an unconstitutional basis. In "The American Crisis Biographies (Wm. H. Seward by Edmund Everett Hale, Jr.) are these significant words: "The Civil War will not be treated as a rebellion, but as the great event in the history of our nation, which, after forty years, it is clearly recognized to have been." If the beginning of this century thus exempts and honors the South what great encomium will not its close bestow." 398 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH; We have now established beyond contradiction, by high and reliable Northern testimony, that "Lincoln doubted his right to emancipate under the war power;" that in expressing his opin ion on this subject, he often used the homely illustration, that "calling the calf's tail a fifth leg did not make it a leg:" that notwithstanding this clearly expressed opinion of Mr. Lincoln, "he finally yielded to pressure, and in doing so became the liber ator of the slaves." We have also shown from the same author ity that "nothing short of a Constitutional amendment" could ac tually free "our black millions;" and that all this is now attest ed by the ver}' high authorities on international and Constitu tional law. We have also shown from the same source that the Northern masses were induced to wage war against the South under a "delusion" of Northern origin, a most effective weapon of aggression in the hands of skillful agitators. We have also established by a "great cloud of witnesses" that no President had the right under the Constitution to interfere with the institution of slavery in a State; and that the dawn of the 20th century exonerates the South from blame. How was this impregnable testimony evaded? The basis of the evasion was laid before the war, when the idea to create in the Northern mind a "delusion" was first conceived; during the eight or nine year (from 1852 to 1861) in which Uncle Tom's Cabin played its false, but most effective part in establishing that fatal delusion; then men like Lincoln tragically exclaimed, "This country cannot exist half slave and half free;" and men like Wm. H. Seward cried that "nothing less than universal emancipation will suffice." Now that this "splendid popular delusion" had been fixed in the Northern mind, and Lincoln had been elected on the strength of it, progress was to be made toward "universal emancipation." As the Constitution was a mighty barrier in their way, its ap proaches at first were gradual. The Administration felt its way as if on the edge of quicksand. The first cautious utterances were somewhat like this: "I have no purpose directly or indirect ly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists"--to the North most conciliatory, because it disturbed, no domestic institution or no interest of theirs; but to the South RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 399 most alarming, because it did not include the Territories. It was construed to be the entering wedge that was to insure the threat of Mr. Seward, "we will invade your States." The next step was to raise the cry that "the Government was in a struggle for its existence." If the existence of the Gov ernment had really been jeopardized they alone were responsi ble for it by their now confessed aggressions on the Constitution, and they alone had the power to remove all cause of danger by a return to the true construction of that instrument as rendered from 1789 to the 4th of March, 1861. But disclaiming any vio lation of the Constitution, and all responsibility for "the miser able conditions" then existing, they represented to the people of the North and to the world that the existence of the Governmnt was in imminent peril, and just as when a person whose life had been threatened had the right to take the life of his assail ant in self-defense, so the Government in self-defense had the right to plunder the seceding States, destroy their property and murder and exterminate their citizens. Thus the very creators of the conditions made these same conditions the ground on which to wage a most bitter and most relentless war. Within a few months, after the President had said: "I have no lawful right to do so" (interfere with slavery in the States) Congress began to legislate to abolish slavery in the States. Did Lincoln veto this act of Congress? On the contrary, he approved it Had the Constitution been amended since he had said: "I have no right to do so?" No, not a word, not a syl lable, not a letter, had been changed in that instrument. Yet Congress declared by a majority vote that "Congress had the right to abolish slavery in the States," and Lincoln approved the act. In addressing his "dissatisfied countrymen" in his in augural, he said substantially, "I have an oath registered in Heaven. You have none." May it not be one thing to regis ter an oath in Heaven and quite another thing to have Heaven approve of that oath? Did merciful Heaven forgive the violation of that sacred oath registered in the Court of the Sinless on the plea of Necessity? If Heaven decided the question of "Necessity," we have no rec ord of the fact. But we have ample evidence that Mr. Lincoln 400 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH and his Cabinet, and Congress did decide it. Therefore, in its last analysis this "Necessity" was no necessity at all, but sim ply an unauthorized act of Congress and the Administration-- no more, no less. The plea on which this necessity was based is in these words: "Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed and the execution thereof obstruct ed. . . by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary judicial proceedings, etc. Jefferson Davis, in commenting on this plea, justly and sig nificantly remarks: "A new power is this day found under the Constitution of the United States This means that certain cir cumstances had transpired in a distant portion of the Union, and the power of the Constitution had thereby become enlarged. The inference follows with equal reason that when the circum stances cease to exist, the powers of the Constitution will be contracted again to their normal state! that is, the powers of the Constitution of the United States are enlarged or contract ed according to circumstances. Mankind cannot be surprised at seeing a government administered on such an interpretation of powers blunder into a civil war, and approach the throes of dis solution." If the Constitution had made express provision for cases of absolute necessity, and Mr. Lincoln had complied with those pro visions, doubtless the verdict of history would have acquitted him. But as it is, the enlightened judgment of mankind will for ever condemn him as the deliberate violator of his sacred oath. The same great tribunal will forever condemn the 37th Con gress as "the Congress of usurpation" for its unconstitutionalacts, among which are the following: "Universal emancipation in the Confederate States through confiscation of private property of all kinds; prohibition of the extension of slavery in the Territories; emancipation of slavery in all places under the control of the Government of the United States; emancipation with compensation in the border States, and in the District of Columbia; practical emancipation to fol low the progress of the armies; all restraints to be removed from the slaves, so that they could go free wherever they pleased, RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 401 and be fed and clothed at the expense of the United States, lit erally to become 'wards of the Government.'" The Constitution of the United States has no article, no sec tion, no clause, no word, conferring a grant of power on the Government of the United States to make war upon the States of the Union; and therefore it provides no rules concerning cap tures on land and sea! no rules whatever concerning the conduct of such a war. Its silence on this subject is the strongest pos sible denial of the right of the Government to declare war on one or more of the States of the Union. No fact in history is more evident. If Lincoln and his Cabinet and Congress had recognized this fact, and had acknowledged the independence of the Confederacy and had then waged war on these States as a distinct and inde pendent Government, they would then have been consistent; they would then have been provided with a code of laws for the con duct of their war on these States. Their justification would have been found in Art. 1, Sec. 8, of the Constitution which reads as follows: "The Congress shall have power to declare war, grant let ters of marque and reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regula tion of land and naval forces," etc. Thus the Constitution grants to the Government the right to make war upon foreign nations. In such cases usage determines" the laws of war. Mr. Wheaton, the great American publicist, is high authority on laws governing modern warfare. In his "Elements of International Law" are these words: "By the modern usages of nations, which have now acquired the force of law, temples of religion, public edifices, devoted to civil purposes only, monuments of art and respositories of science are exempt from the general operations of war. Pri vate property on land is also exempt from confiscation with the exception of such as may become booty in special cases, when taken from the enemy in the field, or in beseiged towns, and of military contributions levied upon the inhabitants of the hostile territory. This exemption extends even to the case of an abso- 402 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH lute and unqualified conquest of the enemy's country." (page 241). On the 22d of August, 1815, John Quincy Adams wrote to the Secretary of State: "Our duty is the restoration of all the prop erty, including the slaves, which by the usages of war among civilized nations, ought not to have been taken. All private property on shore was of that description. It was entitled by the laws of war to exemption from capture." On the 28th of July, 1856. William L. Macy, Secretary of State, wrote to the Count de Startiges: "It is a generally receiv ed rule of modern warfare, so far at least as operations upon land are concerned, that the persons and effects of non-combat ants are to be respected. The wanton pillage or uncompensated appropriation of individual property by an army even in the pos session of an enemy's country, is against the usage of modern times." The late Chief Justice Marshal! (United States vs. Percheman, 7 Peters 50,) says: "It may not be unworthy of remark that it is very unusual, even in cases of conquest, for the con queror to do more than displace the sovereign and assume do minion over the country. The modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated; that the sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged if private property should be gener ally confiscated and private rights annulled." Let us now compare these declarations of Wheaton, the pub licist ; of President John Quincy Adams; of Wm. L. Macy, Sec retary of State; and of that most illustrious and greatest of American jurists, Marshall, to the policy of President Lincoln in the "War between the States." Let us note how Sherman in his famous "March to the Sea' laid waste a belt of country from thirty to forty miles wide and boasted of the thorough ness of his work. This is but a sample of the widespread de struction and confiscation of private property contrary to. the usages of modern warfare. More than that, Lincoln yielded to the "pressure" of intense partisans, contrary to the Constitu tion, wantonly annulled private rights, created the "miserable con ditions" of which he complained, and then made these conditions RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 403 an excuse for waging war upon the South, whose only sin was her protest against the violation of the Constitution. The South had never violated the Constitution. All through the turbulent h'story of tho Republic of Republics, her only demand was comp^nce with the Constitution. Calhoun in tne United States Senate e:nphasi;.y the first proposi tion (emancipation in the States) which was peculiarly his own. In familiar conversation with him I remember nothing more touching than the earnestness and completeness with which he embraced the idea. To his mind it was just and beneficient, while it promised the sure end of slavery." Soon after his election, and before his inauguration, in Inde pendence Hall, Philadelphia, he said "that the great principle or idea which had kept the Union together so long was 'that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have equal chances. . . If this, country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.'" (Hapgood p. 181). RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 423 The comment of the historian is: "The speeches" (he was speaking through the States) "seem to have been rather disap pointing at the time, as the people longed for less cautious dec larations." It was this all-consuming soul-passion that peculiarly fitted him, and him alone, for the terribly cruel mission for which des tiny seems to have elevated him to power. Was Charles Fran cis Adams, the scholar and historian of Massachusetts, right when he says, "It was foreordained--predestined?" It required just such a passion--a passion that was absolutely madness itself --to ride rough shod through the smoke of battle, and over the prostrate forms of suffering, bleeding, dying patriots to reach the goal of his ambition, "the end of slavery." How terrible must have been his picture of the horrors of slavery in the South! What "legion of demons" must have inspired his imag ination! Whether to pity the more, or condemn the more, we know not. Lincoln's great trouble was, not simply this madness. He either did not see, or could not see, or would not see, his own responsibility, and that of his party for the conditions then ex isting. His madly impassioned soul could see nothing but "our form of Government saved to the world, its beloved history and cherished memories vindicated, and its happy future fully assured and rendered inconceivably grand"--words of his own to the Border States representatives, to whom he added, "To you more than any others the privilege is given to assure that happiness and swell that grandeur and to link your names therewith for ever." What mattered it to him that the Constitution furnish ed a remedy ? That remedy was not fast enough. The surgery of the sword must take its place. When Lincoln was elevated to power this was the most pros perous Government in the world. Its great charter of safetywas the Constitution. In vain the South clung to it as their only hope, saying, "Give us this and we shall be satisfied." He had it in his power to assure the South and calm her fears. But he answered her pleas in terms the South understood to mean threats and war; and which the North construed as ambigous, yea, in reality self-contradictory. A great number de- 424 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH dared it was conciliatory, while equally as great a number de clared it meant "war to the hilt." The ministers of the Gospel and the great masses believed slavery was the one issue, while Congress and the President were instant in denial. "A splendid popular delusion" prevailed among the Northern masses, while a more personal and more powerful delusion occupied the Presi dent's chair. "Our form of 'Government" was not imperiled till the tall, shrewd, delusive form of Abraham Lincoln rose above the plains of Illinois. Till then, therefore, it needed not be "saved to the world." All "its beloved history," all "its cherished mem ories," antedated his rise to power and delusion. Two years of "a brothers' war" had been draining the best blood of the veins of the Nation when he addressed these soft persuasive words just quoted, to the Border States Representatives. The bloody battle of Antietam had just been fought. That great battle and the many that had preceded it had not then furnished to the Government any "cherished memories," or "beloved his tory" during Lincoln's two years' reign. Besides, every day was one of anticipated battle, every hour one of unrest, and ev ery moment, one of agony. He seemed supremely ignorant of his responsibility for the conditions his policy had brought about. The highest boast of these awful conditions was the matchless display of heroism by the soldiers of the armies of the two sections on the field of struggle. In all this pathetic address to the Border States representa tives, not a tear moistened his eyes, for the heroes wounded and suffering and dying in the strife; not a sigh or word of com miseration escaped his lips for the homes draped in mourning in all the crowded East, in all the Sunny South, or in all the "Wild West. The one great thought that now possessed his mind, thai now crowded out all other thoughts, was "a happy future fully assured and rendered inconceivably grand." That picture was ever incomplete without himself conspicuously at the head of the victorious procession. The intense imagination that paint ed this splendid picture of future happiness and grandeur was colored by the all-absorbing "end of slavery." RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 425 Time with him was too short to pause to consider whether this picture could have come without making our country a cem etery in which to lay for their final sleep the blood stained forms of a million heroes. Were the lives of our heroes so cheap as not to deserve a more serious consideration? Was the Consti tution of so little importance that its method of solution was considered unworthy of trial ? Was there any absolute necessity for substituting the Chicago Platform for the Constitution of the States? The platform meant war, the Constitution meant peace. The platform meant the will of less than 39 per cent of the people; in the Constitution the will of more than 65 per cent. The platform meant the rule of madness, the Constitution that of sanity. When the splendid picture of "future happiness and future grandeur" failed to captivate the Border States representatives, Lincoln did not despair. In all the earnestness of an indomitable passion he exclaimed, "I must save this Government if possible. What I cannot do T will not do, but it may as well be under stood once for all, that I shall not surrender this game, leaving an, available card unplayed." The next day he explained to Seward and Wells what he meant by "available card." It was the emancipation proclamation, admitted by himself to be uncon stitutional, and yet issued in the name of that instrument and by virtue of its authority. How President Davis viewed it may be seen from his message of January 1863: "The public journals of the North have been received con taining a proclamation dated on the first day of the present month, signed by the President of the United States, in which he orders and declares all slaves within ten of the States of the Confederacy to be free, except in such as are to be found within certain districts now occupied in part by the armed forces of the enemy. We may well leave it to the instincts of that common humanity which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow men of all countries to pass judgment on a meas ure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race--peaceful and contented laborers in their sphere--are doomed to extermination, while at the same time they are en- 426 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH couraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insiduous recommendation to abstain from violence unless in necessary self-defence. Our own detestation of those who have attempted the most exercrable measure recorded in the history of guilty men, is tempered by profound contempt for the im potent rage which it discloses. So far as regards the action of this Government on such criminals as may attempt its execution, I confine myself to informing you that I shall--unless in your wisdom you deem some other course more expedient--deliver to the several State authorities all commissioned officers of the United States that may hereafter be captured by our forces in any of the States embraced in the proclamation, that they may be dealt with in accordance with the laws of those States pro viding for the punishment of criminals engaged in exciting servile insurrection. The enlisted soldiers I shall continue to treat as unwilling instruments in the commission of these crimes, and shall direct their discharge and return to their homes on the proper and usual parole." CHAPTER XXXI. A WIDER VIEW AND REPLY TO DISTIN GUISHED AUTHORS. In the last chapter devoted to the Emancipation Proclamation, we showed how Lincoln in the beginning of his administration denied having any right whatever to interfere with slavery in the States; and how, by gradual approaches upon constitutional ground, he finally proclaimed he had absolute authority to free all slaves without regard to State lines:--that is, that his ap proaches were from no authority whatever trenzo, is a curious example of hallucination existing side bv side with perfect rea soning powers, and conscientiousness of right and wrong, and is marked not only by clearness of propriety, and correctness of memory, for the smallest events of by-gone years, but even eloquence of style. His reminiscences, in fact, exhibit a much greater variety and accuracy than would those of an ordinary person of sound mind." "Sidney Smith's father was eccentric to the point of insanity. He was a man of considerable ability, endowed with great force RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 481 of character, and a keen sense of humor..... .He seems to have had a mania for doing rash and unaccountable things. One of these unaccountable things was to leave a newly-wedded wife at the church door and rush off to America, returning to her only after some years." Abraham Lincoln was the son of an eccentric father, and of "a melancholy, sensitive, brooding, and pale mother." As a boy he was precocious and possessed a wonderful memory. He could repeat, verbatim, on Monday the sermon of Sunday. At the age of thirteen he manifested a mania for the principles of Abolitionism. At fourteen he was famous as "the talkative boy." "Always tending towards fits of gloom," the death of his father, "almost unsettled his mind." "He and his friends feared for his sanity." "During his fits of melancholy he was inclined to sui cide, and no longer dared to carry a pocket knife in spite of his old time love for whittling." "There was a popular belief that in all weathers he used to sit for hours on her (his fiance's) grave." "He had a fixed habit of reciting mournful verses." With "vagaries, almost insane," he was "the shrewdest of poli ticians." Like Sidney Smith he was "eccentric almost to the point of insanity;" like him also "he had a keen sense of humor;" and like him "he had a mania for doing rash and unaccountable things." In his second love affair, when all the preparations for the marriage had been made "he failed to appear," and at day break was found in so distraught a state that friends watched over him, and kept from him all knives and razors and other weapons with which he might have ended his life. He said of himself, "I am the most miserable man living. If what I feel were equally distributed to the whole human race there would not be a. cheerful face on earth." An observer said of him, "In his melancholy moods his whole nature was immersed in Cimmerian darkness." Whitney found him "talking the wildest and most incoherent nonsense all to himself," and said, in speaking of it, "A stranger would have supposed Lincoln had suddenly gone insane," but he "knew his idiosyncrasies and felt no alarm." Like Rousseau "his features wore a strange and terrifying expression." Like Shelly, Lincoln had actual hallucinations. Shelly at one time saw a smiling child rise above the sea foam and "clap its 482 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH hands.'' At another time he met a figure wrapped in a mantle. On lifting the cloak he revealed the phantom of himself. In 1860, just after his election, Lincoln saw "Two separate and distinct images of himself, the tip of the nose of one being about three inches from the tip of the other." Disturbed and alarmed he arose. "He looked in the glass, but the illusion vanished." He said, on lying down again, "I saw it a second time, plainer, if possible, than before." Nesbit says, "seeing a special image of one's self is a form of hallucination that occurs among the apoplectic and insane." We have given twenty names of persons each of whom is declared to have been a genius, and each has also been scientifi cally pronounced insane. Lincoln was more or less like each of these twenty geniuses. In his deep and spasmodic melancholy, he was more or less like Johnson, Cowper, Campbell, Goldsmith, Lamb, Rousseau, Chateaubriand, Holderlin, Poe and Alfieri. In his inclination to commit suicide, he was more or less like Chatterton, Chateaubriand, Sand, Tannahill, Lenau, Poe, and Lucretius. In his hallucinations, he was more or less like Shelly, Landor, Rousseau, Blake, Tasso and Pellico. In his dread of insanity, he was more or less like Swift and Johnson. In the strange and periodic "terrifying expression" of his features, he was more or less like Rousseau, the statesman and philosopher. In his treatment of the woman to whom he had plighted his faith, he was more or less like Sidney Smith's father. In his eccentricity, he was more or Jess like them all. But there is one feature of insanity in which he was unlike them all. It is given by Henry C. Whitney in these words: "While we were traveling in ante-railway days on the circuit, and would stop at a farm house for dinner.'Lincoln would im prove the leisure in hunting up some farming implement, ma chine, or tool. He would carefully examine it all over, first generally and then critically; he would ris;ht it to determine if it was straight or warped: if he coi-.ld make a practical test RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 483 of it he would do that; he would turn it over, or around, and stoop, or lie down, if necessary, to look under it; he would ex amine it closely, then stand off and examine it at a distance, he would shake it, lift it, roll it about, up-end it, over-set it, and thus ascertain every quality and utility which inhered in it." (Hapgood, pp. 113-114.) We have shown that "Wisdom and genius are not interchange able terms." Lincoln is admitted to have been a man of gen ius, but is so far from being famed for his erudition, that Charles Francis Adams, of Boston says, "I must therefore affirm, with out hesitation, that in the history of our government, down to this hour, no experiment so rash has ever been made as that of elevating to the head of affairs a man with so little preparation for the task as Lincoln." This accounts for his persistent claim that the silence of the Constitution gave liberty to the Federal government, and not to the States; and that "measures otherwise unconstitutional, may become lawful" under emergencies of his own creation. We have seen "hallucinations and perfect reasoning powers existing side by side." Few, indeed, are those, whose reasoning powers were more acute than were Lincoln's. Fewer still are they who so cunningly and successfully combined fact and fic tion as to give to the latter the color of the former. Had he been a man of erudition and had he possessed a thor ough knowledge of the Constitution, and been as devoted to its teachings as he was to the liberation of the Southern slaves, he would have immortalized his administration in the truest and highest sense. It is also in evidence that Egotism is very conspicuous in sub jects of this class of insanity. This explains "the talkative boy" and "The Talkative Man." During his youth there came to his town a distinguished lecturer. Abe's friends said, "Abe can beat that." Mounting a convenient box he showed them that he, too, thought so. He, afterwards, criticised a decision of the highest Court in America, and. perhaps, the greatest in the world, as "A sort of a decision" in comparison with his own. At the same time he claimed to have produced "evidence so conclusive and argument so clear that even the fathers' great 484 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH authority can not stand." Yet that "so conclusive evidence" was such that no efficient court would accept, and, hence, the argument based on it was no better. It is also in evidence, on expert testimony, that subjects of this species of insanity have "the affective life deranged;" and that "there is an amazing moral insanity;" that "the intelligence is often acute enough, being tainted by feelings under the influ ence of which persons think and act." With Lincoln "the pre cise fact" that tainted all of his thoughts and acts was "the wrong of slavery." This blinded his mind and heart to the sacredness of the Constitution. By it his "affective life was deranged;" and his "moral insanity was amazing," as seen in these words addressed to the Chicago ministers: "Nor do I urge objections (to Emancipation) of a moral nature in view of the possible consequences of insurrection and massacre in the South,"--a barbarism in violation of all civilized warfare,--a barbarism no sane ruler of an enlightened country would sanc tion. The same "amazing moral insanity" is also seen in the three American bastiles, to one of %vhich we have referred in Chapter XXVIL. Political prisoners from Governors and Con gressmen down to bailiffs, were thrown into these on mere sus picion, "without law or the form of law." AH this in free Amer ica! in the model Republic of the world! Only insanity, in such a country and in such a Republic, could have been guilty of a despotism like this. It has been said by many Northern writ ers and truly said, that no other man could have inaugurated that war, and so wrought upon the public mind as to have over come both a divided North and a solid South. Nor could he have done it had he not been controlled by a mania whose zeal a>id canning knew no bounds or limitation. This brings us to say next, that we have produced expert tes timony showing that subjects of this peculiar species of insan ity possess no ordinary "ingenuity and cunning." In consid ering this phase of the question, let it be remembered that Lin coln meant war from the beginning. His cunning was seen first in his "smooth phrases of enforcing the law and collecting the revenue," when all well informed Constitutional lawyers knew there were no laws to enforce and no revenue to collect. i RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 485 It was seen in his skillful manipulation of two supreme court judges to inspire the Confederate peace commissioners with hope of peace, while all the time he was secretly active in plan ning and plotting to re-enforce Fort Sumter. It was seen in tlie deeper plot of making Fort Sumter the means of causing tht. Confederates to "fire on the flag;" and then, in turn, of using this event as the means of inflaming the Northern minds against the South. "The flag was fired on" The event was declared to be a declaration of war on the part of the South. Congress was hastily summoned. A shrewd and inflammatory message was immediately sent to both Houses. The excitement grew. The mob spirit of the North was kindled into a blaze. Seventyfive thousand troops were called out for ninety days. It is a question whether this small force and this short time imply ig norance on the part of the executive or cunning strategy. Mr. Male intimates it means the latter when he says "Lincoln, it may be supposed, received the news (firing on Sumter) with resig nation. He .had probably foreseen its necessity. (Mark the word necessity. Necessary or not the event had placed him in the position in which he desired to stand." According to Hale, it was therefore a strategic move to initiate war: and war in reality, meant to him the freedom of four million slaves: and his suggestive words are: "I know very well that the name coi.nccted with this act will never be forgotten." In the dark days of 18(>2 ''when Confederate victories were at high tide and the spirits of the North at low tide, the same matchless ingenuity and cunning manifested themselves. The public pulse was against him. Then it was he sent Seward through the Northern States to request "Governors and influ ential citizens to ask him to issue a call for more troops." Then it was the Governors of the loyal states met in Convention at Altoona "to discuss the situation,"--the result of his scheming It was now, too, that Carl Schurz, minister to Spain, wrote him that "there was great danger of the Southern Confederacy's being recognized by France and England." His cunning was then again equal to the emergency. He immediately invited Schurz to come home. He arranged for him to deliver ai> address in New York City on "Emancipation as a Peace Meas- 486 RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH ure," saying "remember you may hear from me the same day." The day for the speech was fixed. It was well advertised. A large audience greeted the dis*incnushed speaker. He delivered his address. At the opportune moment, just as he was in the act of taking his seat, he was handed a copy of the President's message, given that afternoon to Congress." At this moment of surprise and excitement it was read amid the wildest ap plause. The scheme had succeeded. Reporters were there to do the rest. This was immediately followed by the organization of "Emancipation Societies." It is a question perhaps difficult to decide whether the scheming of Lincoln or the millions of armed men had the more to do in the success of the North, with the odds in favor of the former. There is yet still another characteristic that is very common, according to the evidence, in subjects of this class of the in sane. It is their inclination to exaggerate. We shall not attempt to compile here the many exaggerations of Lincoln. We shall refer the reader to Lincoln's Cooper Institute speech, as given in Chapters IX, X and XI. Indeed the entire speech is an exaggeration. We shall content ourselves here with one charac teristic specimen, found in this chapter. It is this: "If what I feel were equally distributed to the whole human race, there would not be a cheerful face on earth." ******* This chapter is the resuk of the writer's investigations of the history and philosophy of this Government from its origin to the surrender of the armies of the Confederacy. He coul3 not account for the sayings and acts of this very erratic and unique figure, elevated to the head of affairs in 1860, on the ground of sanity. Lincoln was an engima. He was gloomy, witty and genial. Both his wit and melancholy were proverbial. "His observation on common things displayed unusual acumen." His homely phrases and illustrations are still quoted with ap probation. He rose unaided and unheralded like a meteor above the plains of Illinois, shot athwart the political sky, at tracted international attention, became a world-theme and died a mystery. Reasoning with a strange and earnest madness, he reversed, by means of shrewd scheming and plotting, the prac- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 487 tice and teachings of the government from Washington to Lin coln or for three-fourths of a century. Setting at naught the advice of his party leaders and leading statesmen, he success fully inaugurated revolution. Holding his hand on the public pulse, he knew just when to act and how to act A fatalist, he believed he "had come to the kingdom for this purpose"--to free the African. By his cunning he shaped public opinion at will. From a bed of leaves in a garret, he rose by rapid strides to a gilded couch in the mansion of the Nation. Without either great social or educational advantages he became a power su perior to his tented millions. It was not the army, nor was it Congress, that prevented compromise and peace in the fall of 1862, but Lincoln with his mailed hand on the throats of the border states. It was through these states, and these alone, that the war against the South succeeded in its purpose. If Lincoln retains the high place now assigned him, as a states man and philanthropist, it must be, and it. will be, because of his peculiar insanity, or moral madness, that enabled him to rise to a niche in autocracy, where it could be said of him and him alone, "history is crowded with tales of despots, but of no despot who thought or decided with the tranquil taciturn independence which was now marking this president of the free American Republic." (Morse's Abraham Lincoln--American statesman. Vol. 11.) CHAPTER XXXVI. THE FALL OF THE CONFEDERACY AND THE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF DAVIS- The fall of the Confederacy was as sudden as complete. Even President Davis seemed slow to believe that the fall of Rich mond was so near at hand. He was in no haste to remove the State archives from the city. It was as late as the memorable 2nd of April, 1865, that he abandoned Richmond, and then only to go as far as Danville. It was here Lee expected to remarshal his "invincibles" with the hope of uniting his forces with those of Johnston in the direction of Roanoke river. But Grant's movements caused him to retreat in the direction of Lynchburg. It was at Danville Mr. Davis was informed of Lee's surren der. He immediately left for Goldsboro, North Carolina. Here he held a consultation with Gen. Johnston, and then moved south ward. At Lexington he received a despatch, requesting the presence of Gen. Breckinridge, his Secretary of War. Gen. Shenmn had submitted a proposition for the surrender of the forces under Johnston, who considered the terms too compre hensive for him to assume the repsonsibility of deciding upon them. Gen. Breckinridge and Postmaster General Reagan were sent to meet Gen. Johnston near Raleigh. On their arrival Gen. Sherman submitted terms of surrender "on which an ar mistice was declared." A very remarkable feature of the terms submitted by Gen. Sherman "was a declaration of amnesty to all persons both mil itary and civil." Particular attention was called to this clause by Gen. Johnston, Breckinridge and Reagan. But Sherman re plied, "I mean just that," and gave as his reason that it was "the only way to have perfect peace." The authorities at Washington refused to approve these terms, and ordered the armistice to cease after a specified time. Davis remained in Charlotte until the hour when the armistice ended. He then resumed his journey southward passing through South Carolina to Washington, Georgia. His cavalry escort with which he had started from Charlotte was not heard of after ar- RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 489 riving at Washington because, as he supposed, they had learn ed of the surrender of Johnston. While here he learned that a Federal force of cavalry was thought to be approaching the town.' But the news did not dis turb him. He remained over night. He did not apprehend "any molestation from the Federal troops, even if occupying the same town." He thought he was protected by the terms of Johnston's surrender which "he believed to be still in force all over the country East of the Chattahoochee River--the territory embraced in Sherman's immediate command. Feeling assured that he was protected by Gen. Sherman's arm istice, Mr. Davis did not believe "that any expedition could or would be sent for his capture, or for any other war-like pur poses." He cited as an evidence of the correctness of his opinion that while he was in Washington "Gen. Upton of the Federal Army with a few members of his staff passed unattend ed over the railroad, a few miles from the place, en route for Augusta, to receive the muster rolls of the discharged troops, and take charge of the immense military stores there that fell into Gen. Sherman's hands by the surrender. Gen. Upton was not interfered with, the country being at peace, though nothing would have been easier had Davis been so inclined." For this reason Mr. Davis was not afraid of being captured, and did not conceal his movements. How prone a truly honest man is not to doubt the honesty of others! Had not Davis yet profited by his knowledge of the intrigues at Headquarters in the District of Columbia ? At this very time while his soul was so much at ease, an entire division of Fed eral cavalry was covering that district of declared peace for the purpose of his capture. Mr. Davis left Washington in company with Gen. Reagan, his three aides, and an escort of ten mounted men. Receiving reliable information that bands of marauders were going through the country stealing horses and committing other depredations, he became alarmed about the safety of his wife and family, and determined to hasten to their protection, riding seventy miles without halt, reaching there just at daylight. Finding "the region infested with deserters and robbers, he 490 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH traveled several days with his family who had a considerable train of wagons, furnished them by the Quartermaster at Wash ington. He evidently did not yet think it necessary to conceal either his person or his movements. He still believed when he had crossed the Chattahoochee he would be in danger of arrest and not before. The very evening before his arrest he had planned to leave Mrs. Davis and the children to go to the trans-Mississippi De partment, believing Mrs. Davis to be now safe. But just then one of his aides reported that a party of guerrillas or highway men was coming that night to seize the horses and mules of his wife's train. He, therefore, decided to remain another night. It was now the 9th of May, 1865. The place was Irwinville, 75 miles from Macon, Ga. One other night's protection in an emergency, and then a fond farewell, a God-bless-you and a race for the trans-Mississippi Department! But alas! the dawn of another day told a different story. It was just the day before (the 8th May) that Gen. Minty issued an order addressed to Lieutenant Col. H. N. Howland, commanding a brigade as follows; "You will have every port and ferry on the Ocmulgee and Altamaha Rivers, from Hawkinsville to the Ohoopee River, well guarded, and make every effort to capture or kill Davis, the rebel ex-President, who is supposed to be endeavoring to cross the Ocmulgee South of Macon." (104 War of Rebel lion, 665). On the same day Major Gen. J. H. Wilson wrote Gen. Upton: "the President of the United States has issued his procla mation announcing that the Bureau of Military Justice has re ported upon indisputable evidence that Jefferson Davis, Clement C. Clay, Jacob Thompson, George N. Sanders, Beverly Tucker, and W. C. Cleary incited and concerted the assassination of Mr. Lincoln, and the attempted assassination of Mr. Seward. He, therefore, offers for the arrest of Davis, Clay and Thompson $100,000 dollars each; for Sanders and Tucker $25,000 each; and for Cleary $10,000. Publish this in handbills, circulate every where and urge the greatest possible activity in the pursuit. CI04 War of Rebellion 66M. RICHAKDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 491 Here was Davis trusting implicitly in the armistice of Sherman. At that very hour an immense reward was offered for his ar rest by the President of the United States, based, as he claimed, "upon indisputable evidence." But the time was short indeed when the evidence was both disputed and refuted. Gen. Wilson also wrote Gen. Steedman: "Everything is on the lookout for J. D. His cavalry is dissolved, and he is a fug itive, but in what direction is not known. (104 War of Re bellion 666). On the 10th day of May, 1865, Lieut.-Col. B. D. Pritchard, commanding the 4th Michigan Cavalry "captured at Irwinville, Ga., Mr. Davis with his family, his wife's sister and brother, Mr. Reagan, his Postmaster-General, Mr. Burton N. Harrison, his private Secretary, Col. W. Preston Johnston, and" Col. Lubbock, of his staff, and Lieut. Hathaway; together with five wag ons and three ambulances. The mere statement of the foregoing facts, is proof posi tive that President Davis was not caught in an effort to "escape in his wife's clothing." It was the fabrication of a newspaper correspondent. Col. Pritchard in his announcement of the cap ture said nothing of any such endeavor on the part of Davis. Yet "Major-General J. H. Wilson in his official report to Mr. Stanton, the Secretary of War, on the 14th of May, makes the statement, saying he derived it from 'the captors.'" Why should Gen. Wilson make such a charge under the phrase "from the captors," when Col. Pritchard in his official report and correspondence makes no such statement? Col. Pritchard was the one man whose testimony should have weighed with Gen. Wilson. Yet under the indefinite term, "the captors" he makes the grave charge. The man traveling with a train of five wagons and three ambulances with his family and a number of others, without effort to conceal his identity, does not feel the need of disguising himself. Besides, James H. Parker, one of "the captors," and the first to recognize him, published in the Portland Argus (Maine) a full story of the capture while Davis was still in prison. In this story he writes: "She (Mrs. Davis) behaved like a lady and he as a gentle man, though manifestly he 'was chagrined at being taken into 492 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH custody. Our soldiers behaved like gentlemen, as they were, and our officers like honorable, brave men, and the foolish stor ies that went the newspaper rounds were all false......! defy anybody to find a single officer or soldier (and there was not less than two regiments present) who was present at the cap ture of Jefferson Davis; who will say, upon honor, that he was disguised in a woman's clothes, or that his wife acted in any way unladylike and undignified on the occasion." True Southerners place their honor above their lives. No English lord excelled them in dignity. No conditions could be tray them into unbecoming conduct. It is a custom among newspaper men to add sensational features to their stories for publication, that they may be the more readable. This false hood was the mere fabrication of a newspaper correspondent, and yet it was given more credence than the official report of Col. Pritchard. When honesty is wanting, dignity is either lacking or clothed in borrowed light. Honesty of purpose was wanting in the proclamation of President Johnson and in the official report of Major-General Wilson. All the dignity that belonged to these two distinguished personages was borrowed from their high official positions. T. H. Peabody, an eminent lawyer of St. Louis, was also one of the captors. In a speech to the Grand Army Post a few days after the death of President Davis, he also denied the whole story. It was however, a sweet morsel to the President of the Unit ed States, to Major-Gen. Wilson, and to the Secretary and As sistant Secretary of War. Three days after the capture of Davis the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, wrote to the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge of Kentucky that "Jefferson Davis was caught three days ago in Georgia trying to escape in his wife's clothes." (121 War of Rebellion 555). Twelve days after the capture of Davis the Assistant Secre tary of War, Mr. Dana, ordered Gen. Miles to have Col. Prit chard to bring with him "the woman's dress in which Jefferson Davis was captured, (121 War of Rebellion 569). That dress was not produced, for the best of reasons. Had Messrs. Stanton BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 493 and Dana possessed one-tenth of the chivalry of Davis they would have publicly confessed their error, and have asked Davis's pardon. In as much as high officials have ratified the newspaper charges, and in as much as this fact is of record, it is proper that we 'set this question at rest forever. About the time of the arrest of Davis, the public mind throughout the entire coun try, especially in the North, was in the highest state of excite ment. In the midst of this abnormal condition of things a con spiracy was formed for the purpose of deceiving Mr. Holt, the Judge Advocate General, and obtaining money from the Govern ment. The conspirators consisted of six men and two women, all under fictitious names. Lincoln had just been assassinated and perhaps no crime in the history of the world had stirred deeper feelings of indignation than did that of the assassination of Lincoln. That crime was seized upon as the means of accomplishing their purpose. They cunningly implicated Davis, Clay, Thompson and others in the crime. They detailed fic titious conversations with Davis and others. They falsely rep resented the deeds of these men. Through the press of the North they inflamed to fever heat tfie public mind. Though their fabrications were such that it has been truthfully said of them, "a child who would faithfully believe the dreams of Alice in Wonderland would reject them as false," yet Mr. Holt, the Judge Advocate General, swallowed them all as sweet mor sels, and poured large sums of money belonging to the Govern ment into the laps of the conspirators. Congress finally ordered an investigation of the charges made by these conspirators, and appointed a committee to examine into them. That committee consisted of the Judiciary Com mittee of the Lower House, with J. C. Turner of the Bureau of Military Justice. The first thing this committee did was to designate Mr. Tur ner to investigate the character of the witnesses upon whose testimony they were to rely to establish so heinous a crime. This resulted in a confession of many of the so-called witnesses that the whole "matter was a conspiracy for the purpose of de- 494 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH ceiving Gen. Holt and obtaining money from the Govern ment." The report of that committee, as made by Col. Turner is as follows: "Sanford Conover--his true name is Dunham; lawyer by pro fession, formerly lived at Croton, then in New York and Brook lyn; a very shrewd, bad, dangerous man. William Campbell-- his true name is Joseph A. Hoare, a gas-fixer by trade; born in the State of New York and never South of Washington. Joseph Snevel--his true name is William H. Roberts, formerly ticket agent on Harlem railroad, then kept tavern at Yonkers, etc.; was never South. Tarnum B. Wright--true name John Waters; is lame in knee; works in a brick yard near Cold Springs, on Long Island, etc. John H. Patten--true name Peter Stevins, lives at Nyack, near Piedmont, on the North River; is now a justice of peace there. Sarah Douglas and Miss Knapp --the true name of one is Dunham, who is the wife of Conover ; the name of the other is Mrs. Charles Smythe; she is the sister, or sister-in-law, of Conover and lives at Cold Springs; her hus band is a clerk on Blackwell's Island. Mr. McGill--his name is Neally; he is a licensed pedler in New York, and sometimes drives a one-horse cart." The report closes with: "My investigation and the disclos ure made prove (undoubtingly to my mind) that the depositions made by Campbell, Snevel, Wright, Patten, Mrs. Douglas and others, are false; that they are cunningly! devised diabolical fabrications of Conover, verified by suborned and perjured ac complices." This report completely exhonorated Davis, Clay, and all others charged with the murder of Mr. Lincoln. At the same time it greatly cmbarassed Mr. Holt, the Judge Advocate General. Withdrawing his depositions he defended himself in "Eleven closely printed pages, detailing all the correspondence and in terviews with Conover, and the other conspirators." If in this labored effort he convinced himself he is perhaps the only man convinced. The example is conspicuous for the ease with which "the wish becomes father of the thought." It is evident that all these "diabolical fabrications of Conover" were "cun- EICHABDSOirS DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 485 ningly devised" by him for the money he received from the Government; and that they were "verified by! his suborned and perjured accomplices" for the same purpose. Conover knew Gen. Holt's readiness to believe any disreputable report about Davis and the other distinguished Southerners. He was not deceived, but Holt, his willing tool was. This was "the in disputable evidence" reported by Holt to President Johnson, and upon which the President based his $100,000 rewards for Davis and Clay. How did Conover, the leading conspirator and shrewd law yer, know Holt so well? Mrs. Surart, innocent of the crime charged against her, had just fallen a victim to the fury of the vindictive Judge Advocate General, and had paid the penalty of her life. The ease with which this imposition was accom plished, led to the conspiracy. If Holt had not lost his reason in the case of Mrs. Suratt he would not have been duped in the case of Davis and others. Col. Pritchard took his prisoners to Macon, reaching that place in four days. From Macon they were transferred to Augusta by rail--"Mr. Davis thanking General Wilson for hav ing treated him with all the courtesy possible to the situation." On the 19th of May, 1865, the propeller William P. Clyde dropped anchor in Hampton Roads. She had on board, as pris oners, Jefferson Davis and his family, Alexander H. Stephens, John H. Reagan, Clement C. Clay and other State prisoners belonging to the Confederacy. On the 21st day of May, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Reagan, and other prisoners were transferred to the gunboat Maumee, and sent to Fort Warren in Boston Harbor. On the afternoon of the same day Mr. Davis and Mr. Clay were sent to Fortress Monroe. The procession from the gunboat Maumee to Fort Monroe is described by Dr. Craven, the physician of the Fort as "simple thou.srh monotonous, and was under the immediate inspection of Major-Gen. Halleck and the Hon. Charles A. Dana, then Assistant Secretary of War: Col. Pritchard of the Michigan cavalry, who immediately effected the capture, being the officer in command of the guard from the vessel to the fort. First came Major-Gen. Miles, holding the arm of Davis, who was 496 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH dressed in a suit of plain Confederate grey, with a grey slouch ed hat--always thin, and now looking much wasted and very haggard. Immediately after these came Col. Pritchard, accom panying Mr. Clay with a guard of soldiers in their rear. Thus they passed through files of men in blue from the Engineer's Landing to the water Battery Postern; and on arriving at the casemate which had been fitted up into cells for their incarcera tion, Mr. Davis was shown into casemate No. 2, and Clay into No. 4, guards of soldiers stationed in 1, 3, 5 upon each side of them. They entered. The heavy doors clanged behind them... "Being ushered into his inner cell by Gen. Miles, and the two doors leading thereinto from the guard-room, being fastened, Mr. Davis, after surveying the premises for some moments and looking out through the embrasure with such thoughts which his lined and expressive face, as may be imagined, suddenly seated himself in a chair, placing both hands on his knees and asked one of the soldiers pacing up and down within his cell, this significant question: 'Which way does the embrasure face-" "The soldier was silent. "Mr. Davis, raising his voice a little, repeated the inquiry. But again dead silence, or only the measured foot-falls of the pacing sentries within, and the fainter echoes of the four without. "Addressing the other soldier, as if the first had been deaf and had not heard him, the prisoner again repeated his inquiry. "But the second soldier remained silent as the first, a slight twitching of his eyes only intimating that he had heard the ques tion, but was forbidden to speak. " 'Well," said Mr. Davis, throwing his hands up, and break ing into a bitter laugh, 'I wish my mien could have been taught your disciplinel' and then rising from his chair, he commenced pacing back and forth before the embrasure, now looking at the silent sentry across the moat, and anon at the two silently pac ing soldiers who were his companions in the 'casemate. We have italicized the following for a purpose: "guards of soldiers stationed in 1, 3, 5, upon each side of them." "The heavy doors clanged beMnd them;" "asked one of the soldiers pacing up and down within his cell;" "the measured footfalls of RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 407 the pacing sentries within and the fainter echoes of the four without;" and "at the two silent pacing soldiers who were his companions--in the casemate." We also have the testimony of Mr. Dana, the Assistant Sec retary of War. The one may throw light upon the other. We quote as follows italicizing as it suits us: "The arrangements for the security of the prisoners seem to me as complete as could be desired. Each one occupies the inner room of a casemate. The window is heavily barred. The sentry stands within before each of the doors leading into the outer room. These doors are to be grated, but are secured by bars fastened on the outer side. Two other sentries stand out side of these doors. An officer is also constantly in the outer room, whose duty it is to see his prisoners every fifteen minutes. The outer door of all is locked on the outside, and the key is kept exclusively by the general officer of the guard. Two sen tries are also stationed without that door. .. A strong line of sentries cuts off all access to the vicinity of the casements. An other line is stationed on top of the parapet overhead, and a third line is posted acrosss the moat on the counterscarp opposite the places of confinement. The casemates on each side and be tween those occupied by the prisoners are used as guard rooms and soldiers are always there. A lamp is constantly kept burn ing in each of the rooms. The furniture of each of the prison ers is a hospital bed, with iron bedsteads, a chair, a table, a movable stool closet. A Bible is allowed to each. I have not given orders to have them placed in irons as Gen. Halleck seems to oppose it, but Gen. Miles is instructed to have fetters ready if he thinks them necessary. The prisoners are to be supplied with soldiers' rations, cooked by the guard. Their linen will be issued to them in the same way. I shall'be back tomorrow morning." In the previous part of this account by Mr. Dana we are told that Mr. Davis, after parting with his wife, his secretary, and his staff, "bore himself with a haughty attitude, his face was somewhat flushed, but his features were composed and his step firm." Later on that same day, before leaving the fort, Mr. Dana, 498 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH annoyed perhaps as he recalled the "haughty attitude" of Mr. Davis, wrote in Mr. Stanton's name: "Brevet-Major-General Miles is hereby authorized and direct ed to place manacles and fetters upon the hands and feet of Jefferson Davis and Clement C. Clay whenever he may deem it advisable in order to render their imprisonment more secure." (121 War of Rebellion 565.) Had he not just said "the arrangements for the security of the prisoners seem to me to be as complete as could be desired ?" Does not his own account, given that very day, show most con clusively that not even "manacles and fetters on the hands and feet of Davis and Clay, both old, delicate, emaciated, weak and worn, could not "render their imprisonment more secure?" If instead of placing "manacles and fetters" on their "hands and feet," they had driven the sword of hatred into the very hearts of Davis and Clay, they would not have been more helpless? Sentinels within, and sentinels without; sentinels on each side of them and sentinels on the "top of the parapet overhead;"-- lines of sentries, first, second, and "third," all these to guard two old men who could not run fifty yards without endangering their lives, if at liberty and unmolested. Besides all these, they were shut in by "heavy doors" and strong walls; and each case ment had an "inner room," and each of the distinguished pris oners was confined in an "inner room," and thus two walls, to say nothing of the strong thick walls of the fort itself, inter vened between the prisoners and liberty. Nor was even this all. Two sentinels pace in the immediate presence of each, day and night, witnessing every movement of the body, hearing every sigh, and able to lay violent hands on them at any mo ment. Was ever an imprisonment more secure, more trying upon the nerves, more cruel, more insulting? On the 24th day of May 1865, Gen. Miles wrote to Mr. Dana: "Yesterday I directed that irons be put on Davis ankles, which he violently resisted, but became more quiet afterwards." (121 War of Rebellion 570-71.) It was therefore on the 23rd day of May--just thirteen days after his arrest and the second day after his incarceration-- when Davis was placed in irons. Evidently it was intended to RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 499 humble that "haughty attitude." This act of hate, and malice, of shame and disgrace was that of two officials, and therefore the act of the Government. That it was not at all necessary, the facts, as given above, show with a conclusiveness that is ab solutely indisputable. If the Government can be excused at all it is due to the misfortune of having officials, one of whom, while in a soldier's garb and position, was without a soldier's training and a soldier's high sense of honor; and the other while commanding the Department of War in a great Government, either from his education or his slavery to passion and hate, could not rise above the level of the savage chief. Then too what shall be said of the President who sanctioned it by per mitting it? It is well known that he was a tailor and illiterate when he married; and that his wife educated him after his hab its were formed. What distinction could he draw between an eminent and honorable prisoner and a felon as prisoner? Gen. Miles simply says of the shackling of Davis: "He violently resisted, but became more quiet afterward." Dr. Cra ven, the surgeon of the prison, in his book on "The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis," gives the particulars in detail. He says: "It was while all the swarming camps of the armies of the Potomac--over two hundred thousand bronzed and laureled veterans, were preparing for the grand review of the next morn ing, in which, passing in endless succession before the mansion of the President, the conquering military power of the nation was to lay down its arms at the feet of the civil authority, that the following scene was enacted at Fort Monroe: "Captam James E. Titlow, of the Third Pennsylvania Artil lery, entered the prisoner's cell, followed by the blacksmith of the fort and his assistant, the latter carrying in his hands some heavy and harshly-rattling shackles. As they entered, Mr. Davis was reclining in his bed, feverish, and weary after a sleep less nigEt, the food placed near to him the preceding day still lying untouched on its tin plate near his bedside. "Well?" said Mr: Davis, as they entered, slightly raising his head. "I have an unpleasant duty to perform, sir," said Captain 1 500 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF . THE SOUTH Titlow, and as he spoke, the senior blacksmith took the shackles from his assistant. "Davis leaped instantly from his recumbent attitude, a flush passing over his face for a moment, and then his countenance growing livid and rigid as death. "He gasped for breath, clutching his throat with the thin fin gers of his right hand, and then recovering himself slowly, while his wasted figure towered to its full height, now appearing to swell with indignation and then to shrink with terror, as he glanced from the Captain's face to the shackles--he said slowly and with a laboring chest: " 'My God!' you can not have been sent to iron me!" "Such are my orders," replied the officer, beckoning the black smith to approach, who stepped forward, unlocking the padlock and preparing the fetters to do their office. These fetters were of heavy iron, probably five-eights of an inch thick, and con nected together by a chain of the same weight. I believe they are now in the possession of Major-General Miles, and will form an interesting relic. " 'This is too monstrous' groaned the prisoner, glaring hur riedly around the room, as if for some weapon or means of self-destruction. 'I demand Captain, that you let me see the commanding officer. Can he pretend that such shackles are required to secure the safe custody of a weak old man, so guard ed, and in such a fort as this?' " 'It could serve no purpose,' replied Capt. Titlow, 'his or ders are from Washington, as mine are from him.' " 'But he can telegraph,' interposed Mr. Davis eagerly; 'there must be some mistake. No such outrage as you threaten me with, is on record in the history of nations. Beg him; to tele graph, and delay until he answers.' " 'My orders are peremptory,' said the officer, 'and admit of no delay. For your own sake, let me advise you to submit with patience. As a soldier, Mr. Davis, you know I must ex ecute orders!' " 'These are not orders for a soldier,' shouted the prisoner, losing all control of himself. 'They are orders for a jailor-- for a hangman, which no soldier wearing a sword should ac- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 501 cept.' "I tell you the world will ring with this disgrace. The war is over; the South is conquered; I have no longer any coun try but America, and it is for the honor of American, as for my own honor and life, that I plead against this degradation. " 'Kill me! Kill me!' he cried, passionately throwing his arms wide open and exposing his breast, 'rather than inflict on me and on my people through me, this insult worse than death.' " 'Do your duty, blacksmith,' said the officer, walking toward the embrasure as if not caring to witness the performance. 'It only gives increased pain on all sides to protract this inter view.' "At these words the blacksmith advanced with the shackles, and seeing that the prisoner had one foot upon the chair near his bedside, his right hand resting on the back of it, the brawny mechanic made an attempt to slip one of the shackles over the ankle so raised; but as if with the vehemence and strength which frenzy can impart, even to the weakest invalid, Mr. Davis sud denly seized his assailant and hurled him half way across the room, and the sergeant advanced to seize the prisoner. Im mediately Mr. Davis flew on him, and seized his musket and at tempted to wrench it from his grasp. "Of course such a scene could have but one issue. There was a short, passionate scuffle. In a moment Davis was flung upon his bed, and before his four powerful assailants removed their hands from, him, the blacksmith and his assistant had done their work--one securing the rivet on the right ankle, while the other turned the key in the padlock on the left. "This done Mr. Davis lay for a moment, as if in a stupor (what Gen. Miles called "more quiet"). Then slowly raising himself and turning around, he dropped his shackled feet on the floor. The harsh clank of the striking chain seems first to have recalled him to his situation, and dropping his face into his hands, he burst into a passionate flood of sobbing, rocking to and fro, and muttering at brief intervals: "Oh! the shame the shame!" Dr. Craven closes this account of the fettering of Mr. Davis by saying, "He gave me, after some two months, a curious ex planation of the last feature in this incident 502 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH - "He had been speaking of suicide, and denouncing it as the worst form of cowardice and folly. 'Life is not like a commis sion that we can resign when disgusted with the service. Tak ing it by your own hand is a confession of judgment to all that your worst enemies can allege. It has often flashed across me as a tempting remedy for neuralgic torture; but thank God! I never sought my own death but once, and then when com pletely frenzied and not master of my actions. When they came to iron me that day, as a last resource of desperation, I seized a soldier's rrtusket and attempted to wrench it from his grasp, hoping that in the scuffle and surprise, some one of his comrades would shoot or bayonet me.'" We have now discussed the imprisonment of Mr. Davis from the standpoint of disinterested .and enlightened information-- information from the lips of one who was in position to know the facts. What motive prompted it? Certainly it was not the want of absolute security. The infirmity of age and all the facts testify to the contrary. There was no motive, there could have been no motive--but "the bitter and infuriated malice of the Government"--a motive that "sought through the entire war to cast every obloquy upon the character of the great South ern Chief." Had not this Government for four long years of war that taxed all its resources, called him an "assassin" and "a murderer?" Had it not all that time hoped to overwhelm him and his cause with false accusations? Especially within the last few days, in the face of the strongest evidence to the econtrary, had not the Government attempted to immerse and bear him down in ridicule and humiliation by charging him with an effort to escape arrest, "disguised as a woman?" This official falsehood, this official wrong, and this official outrage deserve the scorn and the indignation of the enlightened world. Those who thus attempted to overwhelm him with rid icule and humiliation, and who tried "to brand him with a felon's shame by degrading him with a felon's shackles," deserve no less than the brand of shame they would heap upon him. A future whose confines lie well beyond the borders of the present will laud only the brave, the virtuous, the noble and the true. Tn that impartial realm shame, falsehood, and all that is ignoble RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 503 will be rewarded with curses. When Napoleon was a prisoner on St. Helena, he wore his sword "merely as an ornamental sideaim." Jt is said that when the officer in command of the British forces there demanded of him the surrender of his sword, he refused, and that "all Europe rang with the insult and outrage." The English Government had respect to "the dignity of their illustrious prisoner and of the feeling of outrage in all Europe, and the order was withdrawn?" "How different the conduct of our Government toward a prisoner scarcely less eminent than the great Corsican!" England was magnanimous. She could afford to be. The United States Government could have been magnanimous, and should have been, but it was, instead, petty and spiteful and vindictive and cruel. The conduct of England toward her illustrious prisoner is honored and magnified to-day and will be for all time. The conduct of the United States toward her illustrious prisoner is censured and denounced to-day and will be for all time. As the glory of England for this gen erous deed will never fade, so the stain upon our civilization will never be erased. "Here was a man who a few short weeks before was the acknowledged ruler of six millions of people: with immense armies at his command; with cabinet officers, ambassadors, and a staff of devoted adherents; filling a foremost place in history, the world ringing with his deeds and in sym pathy with his hopes; he who had founded an empire and maintined it through a war more formidable than any of modern times--a man thus eminent and conspicuous, cast into a dun geon and shackled like any common felon! There is indeed in history little to parallel it, and the indignity intended as a hu miliation to Jefferson Davis, has reacted and become our own burning shame." As with all Europe in the case of Napoleon so the people of the United States, denounced the act of Johnson, Stanton, Dana, and Miles in the most bitter terms. They expected sympathy, but received censure. They expected their act of-shame to be received with enthusiasm, but "cruelty is not a characteristic of the American." When they learned that the shackles on Davis had "excited sympathy and indignation instead of applause." they became alarmed; and on the 28th day of May, just five days 504 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH after irons had been placed on the ankles of Davis, the Secretary of War telegraphed Gen. Miles from Washington: "Please report whether shackles have been or have not been placed on Jefferson Davis..... .If they have been, when was it done, and for what reason, and remove them." (121 War of Rebellion 577). This dispatch implies that Stanton did not know that Davis was shackled; and hence that he did not order it. It is both a command and a rebuke. Gen. Miles' reply is is characteristic. It is as follows: "I have the honor to state in reply to your dispatch that when Jefferson Davis was first confined in the casemate the inner doors were light and wooden ones without locks. I directed anklets to be put upon his ankles which would not interfere with his walking, but would prevent his running, should he endeavor to escape. In the meantime I have .changed the wooden doors for grated ones with locks, and the anklets have been removed. Every care is taken to avoid any pretence for complaint, as well as to prevent the possibility of escape." (121 War of Rebellion 577). Both these dispatches were in reply to an indignant public, North as well as South. Be it known that the shackles were not removed until the very day (May 28) on which he was ordered to remove them. We thus learn what is meant by "in the mean time." In the diary of Dr. J. J. Craven, as given in his "The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis," page 63, we find the following: "Sunday, May 28--At 11 A. M. This morning was sitting on the porch in front of my quarters when Capt. Frederick Korte, 3rd Pennsylvania Artillery, who was officer of the day, passed toward the cell of the prison, followed by the blacksmith. This told the story, and sent a pleasant professional thrill of pride through my veins. It was a vindication of my theory that the healing art is only next in sacredness and power to that of the healers of the soul--an instance of the doctrinal toga forming a shield for suffering humanity which none were too exalted or powerful to disregard. I hastily followed the party, but remained in the outer guard-room while the smith removed RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 505 the shackles. Did not let Mr. Davis see me then, but retired, thinking it better the prisoner should be left alone in the first moments of regaining so much, of his personal freedom." Dr. Craven had interceded with Gen. Miles in behalf of Mr. Davis and was exultant because he thought his intercessions had prevailed. He did not then know of the telegram Gen. Miles had that very day received. On page 48 we find another entry antedating this in Dr. Craven's diary as follows: "Told him to spend as little time as he could in bed; that exercise was the best medicine for dispeptic patients. To this he answered by uncovering the blankets from his feet and showing me his shackled ankles. 'It is im possible for me, Doctor; I cannot even stand erect These shackles are very heavy, I know not with the chain how many pounds. If I try to move they trip me and have already abraded broad patches of skin from the parts they touch. Can you devise some means to pad or cushion them, so that when I try to drag them along they may not chafe me so intolerably? My limbs have so little flesh on them, and that so weak, as to be easily lacerated.' "At sight of this I turned away, promising to see what could be clone, as exercise was the chief medical necessity in his case, and at this moment my first thrill of sympathy for my patient was experienced." Here is an officer of the United States army, holding a com mission that entitles him to be honored in all parts of the civilized world. Yet his zeal in bitterness and hatred toward a distin guished prisoner has compromised his intergrity and committed him to falsehood. Dana had said, "The arrangements for the security of the prisoners seem to me as complete as could be desired." Dr. Craven had said, "The heavy doors clanged behind them." Miles said, ''The doors are light." Miles was writing in self-defense; Dana and Craven were not. Dana had said the doors were secured by bars on the outside: Miles said "the doors were without locks,' adding nothing about their being secured by bars fastened on the outside. From Dana and Craven we learn that never were prisoners more securely guarded--confined in a cell within a cell, constantly under the eyes of two trusty 506 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH sentinels, and every fifteen minutes inspected by a commissioned officer, with soldiers quartered, all the time, in contiguous cells on both sides of him, shut in by the very thick walls of the strongest fort in the Continent, and line after line of guards inside and outside. Yet, Gen. Miles said, "I directed anklets to be put upon his ankles, which would not interfere with his walking, but would interfere with his running, should he en deavor to escape." Had Davis been an athlete in the prime of life, in the best possible condition,--as active as a tiger, and as strong as a lion,-- none knew better than Gen. Miles that shackles would not have been necessary. On the contrary, Miles knew him to have been a physical wreck. Not only did he know that, in the truest sense, Davis was unable to run, but was also unwilling. Yet never was the most vicious wild beast, fresh from the jungles, half so securely guarded. "Anklets!" what are they? Shackles "five-eights of an inch thick, with chain of the same thickness!" Anklets that "would not interfere with his walking!" Whom shall we believe, Dr. Craven and Davis, or Miles? The most fitting anklet for a character of Davis' type would have been his honor. To have put him upon his honor would have been to have placed upon his limbs the strongest anklet in the world. His honor would also have been the safest guard that could have been placed around him. Old Fortress Monroe, with all her more than 370 guns, and all the chivalry that stood behind them, would not have been as strong a guard as his simple word of honor. But of a safe guard like this, Miles, and Dana and Stanton were ig norant till an indignant public protest aroused them to their senses. When Miles shackled Davis for five days he shackled himself for all time. When he penned that dispatch in self-defense he wrote his everlasting condemnation. No living mortal believes him--not even excepting himself. CHAPTER XXXVH. THE IMPRISONMENT OF DAVIS (Continued). In 1866 Mr. Doolady, publisher, 448 Broome Street, New York, published "Life and Military Career of Stonewall Jackson," from authentic sources.. From this book we copy the following, say ing in advance that all italics are ours. We do this becuase it is authentic and concise. "The health of Mr. Davis was now failing rapidly. Suffering greatly from neuralgic disorders and other various affections, greatly reduced in system, without appetite, unable on account of his shackles to take exercise, supplied with coarse rations and refused even a knife and fork, without books, pen, paper or even a pencil, incessantly watched by two sentinels, who night and day paced his cell; thus depriving him of even so poor a boon as solitude and silence, the health of the unfortunate pris oner failed rapidly, and would soon have succumbed entirely to the inhuman treatment to which he was subjected, had not Dr. Craven actively interested himself in his behalf and procured the removal of the shackles, and some changes in his rations. But still the prisoner was a great sufferer, his nights were sleep less; he was without appetite; the incessant pacing night and day, of the ever present guards, acted upon his nervous system and tormented him almost into insanity. "Referring once to the severity of his treatment, Mr. Davis said to Dr. Craven: 'Humanity supposes every man innocent until the reverse shall be proven; and the laws guarantee cer tain privileges to persons held for trial. To hold me for trial, under all the rigors of a condemned convict, is not warranted by law--is revolting to the spirit of justice. In the political history of the world, there is no parallel to my treatment. Eng land and the despotic governments of Europe have beheaded men accused of treason; but even after their conviction no such efforts as in my ease have been made to degrade them. Apart, however, from personal treatment, let us see how this matter stands: " 'If the real purpose in the matter be to test the question of II* 508 RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH secession by trying certain persons connected therewith for trea son, from what class or classes should the persons so selected be drawn? " Trom those who called the State Conventions, or from those who, in their respective Conventions, passed the ordinance of secession ? Or, from the authors of the doctrine of State rights ? Or, from those citizens who, being absent from their States, were unconnected with the event, but on its occurrence returned to their homes to share the fortunes of their States as a duty of primal allegiance? Or, from those officers of the State who, being absent on public service, were called home by the ordinance, and returning joined their fellow citizens in State service, and followed the course due to that relation? " 'To the last class I belong, who am the object of the greatest rigor. This can only be explained on the supposition that, having been most honored, I therefore excite most revengeful feelings-- for how else can it be accounted for? " 'I did not wish for war, but peace; therefore sent commis sioners to negotiate before war commenced; and subsequently strove my uttermost to soften the rigors of war; in every pause of conflict, seeking if possible, to treat for peace. Numbers of those already pardoned are those who, at the beginning, urged that the black flag should be hoisted, and the struggle be made one of desperation. " 'Believing the States to be each sovereign, and their Union voluntary, I had learned from the authors of the Constitution that a State could change its form of government, abolishing all which had previously existed; and my only crime has been obedience to this conscientious conviction. Was not this the universal doctrine of the dominant Democratic party in the North previous to secession? Did not many of the opponents of that party in the same section, share and avow that faith? They preached and professed to believe. We believed and preached, and practiced. " 'If this theory be now judged erroneous, the history of the States, from their colonial organization to the present moment, should be rewritten, and the facts suppressed which may mis lead others in a like manner to a like conclusion. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 509 " 'But if as I suppose--the purpose be to test the question of secession by a judicial decision, why begin by oppressing the chief subject of the experiment? Why in the name of fair ness and a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, deprive him of the means needful for the preparation of his defense; and load him with indignities which must deprive his mind of its due equilibrium ? It ill comports with the dignity of a great na tion to evince fear of giving to a single captive enemy all the advantages possible for an exposition of his side of the question. A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law, must re main unsettled forever. (What a terrible arraignment is this, and yet how just!) " 'If the doctrine of State Sovereignty be a dangerous heresy, the genius of America would indicate another remedy than the sacrifice of one of its believers. Wickliffe died, but Huss took up his teachings; and when the dust of this martyr was sprinkled on the Rhine, some essence of it was infused in the cup which Luther drank. " 'The road to the grants of power is known and open; and thus all questions of reserved rights on which men of highest distinction may differ, and have differed, can be settled by fair adjudication; and thus only can they be finally set at rest.' "At another time Mr. Davis remarked it was 'contrary to reason, and the law of nations, to treat as rebellion, or lawlees riot, a movement which had been the deliberate action of an entire people through their organized State governments.' To talk of treason in the case of the South, was to impose an ar bitrary epithet against the authority of all writers on interna tional law. Vattel deduces from his study of all former prece dent--and all subsequent international jurists have agreed with him--that when a nation separates into two parts, each claim ing independence, and both, or either, setting up a new govern ment, their quarrel, should it come to trial by arms, or by di plomacy, shall be regarded as settled precisely as though it were a difference between two separate nations, which the divided sections, defacto, have become. Each must observe the laws of war in the treatment of captives taken in battle, and such negotiations as may from time to time arise shall be conducted .( i 510 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH as between independent and sovereign powers. Mere riots, or conspiracies for lawless objects, in which only limited fac tions of a people are irregularly engaged, may be properly treated as treason, and punished as the public good may require; but Edmund Burke had exhausted argument on the subject in his memorable phrase, applied to the first American movement for independence: 'I know not how an indictment against a whole people shall be framed.' "But for Mr. Lincoln's untimely death, Mr. Davis thought there could have been no question raised upon the subject. That event, more a calamity to the South than to the North, in the time and manner of its transpiring, had inflamed popular pas sions to the highest pitch, and made the people of the section which had lost their chief now -eek an equivalent in the life of the chief of the section conquered. This was an impulse of passion, not a conclusion which judgment or justice could support. Mr. Lincoln through his entire administration, had acknowledged the South as a belligerent nationality, exchanging prisoners of war, establishing truces, and sometimes sending, sometimes receiving, propositions for peace. In the lastf of these occasions, accompanied by the chief member of his 'Cab inet, he purposely met the commissioners appointed by the Southern States to negotiate, going half-way to meet them not far from where Mr. Davis now stood; and the negotiations of Gen. Grant with Gen. Lee, just preceding the latter's surrender, most distinctly and clearly pointed to the promise of a general amnesty; Gen. Grant in his final letter, expressing the hope that, with Lee's surrender, all 'difficulties between the sections might be settled without the loss of another life,' or words to that effect." Following Dr. Craven we find that the health of Mr. Davis grew sensibly worse. Step by step the kind-hearted physician obtained an amelioration of the condition of the eminent pris oner; but the severity of the treatment hfe had experienced in the early part of his confinement still told greatly on his health, and it can readily be appreciated how any confinement to a man in his physical and mental condition must have resulted unfavorably to his health. Proceeding to follow Dr. Craven, we RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 511 extract passages from several interesting conversations had with the prisoner; and we also quote from the worthy Doctor's daily diary, a few references to the physical condition and suf fering of his illustrious patient: "Tune 8--was called to the prisoner, whom I had not seen for a week. Found Mr. Davis relapsing, and very despondent. Com plained again of intolerable pains in the head. Was distracted night and day by the unceasing tread of two sentinels in his room, and the murmur or gabble of the guard in the outside cell. He said his casement was well formed for a torture-room, of the inquisition. Its arched roof made it a perfect whispering gallery, in which all sounds were jumbled and repeated. The torment of his head was so dreadful, he feared he must lose his mind. Already his memory, vision and hearing, were impaired. He had but the remains of one eye left, and the glaring white washed walls were rapidly destroying this. He pointed to a crevice in the wall where his bed had been, explaining that he had changed it to the other side, to avoid the mephitic vapors. "Of the trial he had been led to expect, had heard nothing." This looked as if the indictments were to be suppressed, and the action of a Military Commission substituted. If so, they might do with him as they pleased, for he would not plead, but leave his cause to the justice of the future. As to taking his life, that would be the greatest boon they could confer on him, though for the sake of his family, he might regret the manner of its taking. "Mr. Davis remarked that when his tray of breakfast had been brought that morning, he overheard some soldiers in the guard-room commenting on the food given our prisoners during the late war. To hold him responsible for this was worse than absurd--criminally false. For the last two years of the war, Lee's army had never more than half, and was oftener on quar ter rations of rusty bacon and corn. It was yet worse with other Southern armies when operating in sections which had been campaigned over any time. Sherman with a front thirty or forty miles, breaking into a new country, found no trouble in procuring food; but had he halted anywhere, even for a single week, must have been starved. Marching every day, his men 'j 512 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH I '- *1 ate out a new section, and left behind them a starving wilder ness. ! "Col. Northrop, his Commissary-General, had many difficul- r ties to contend with; and, not least, the incessant hostility of certain opponents of his administration, who, by striking at Northrop, really meant to strike at him. Even General........ Otherwise so moderate and conservative, was finally induced to join this injurious clamor. There was food in the Confed eracy, but no means for its collection, the holders hiding it after the currency had become depreciated; and, if collected, then became the difficulty of its transportation. Their railroads were overtaxed, and the rolling stock soon gave out. They could not fee their own troops; and prisoners of war in all coun tries and ages have cause of complaint. Some of his people confined in the west and at Lookout Point, had nearly starved at certain times, though he well knew, or well believed, full prison \ rations had been ordered and paid for in these cases. "Herd men together within an inclosure, their arms taken from them, their organization lost, without employment for their time, and you will find it difficult to keep them in good health. They were ordered to receive precisely the same ra tions given to the troops guarding them; but dishonest commis saries and provost-marshals were not confined to any people. Doubtless the prisoners on both sides often suffered, that the officers having charge of them might grow rich; but wherever such dishonesty could be brought home, prompt punishment followed. Gen. Winder and Col. Northrop did the best they could, he believed; but both were poorly obeyed or seconded by their subordinates. To hold him responsible for such un authorized privations, was both cruel and absurd. He issued , order after order on the subject; and, conscious of the extreme difficulty of feeding the prisoners, made the most liberal offers for exchange--almost willing to accept any terms that would , release his people from their burdens. Non-exchange, however, : was the policy adopted by the Federal Government--just as Austria, in her late campaigns against Frederick the Great, re fused to exchange; her calculation being, that as her population was five times more numerous than Pmssia's, the refusal to RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 513 exchange would be a wise measure. That it may have been pru dent, though inhuman, situated as the South was, he was not prepared to deny; but protested against being held responsible for evils which no power could avert, and to escape from which almost any concessions had been offered. "Sunday July 11--Was sent for by Mr. Davis. Found pris oner very desponding, the failure of his sight troubling him, and his nights almost without sleep. His present treatment was killing him by inches, and he wished shorter work could be made of his torment. He had lioped long since for a trial, which should be public, and therefore with some semblance of fairness; but hope deferred was making his heart sick. The odious,' malignant, and absurd insinuations that he was con nected in some manner with the great crime and folly of Mr.Lincoln's assassination, was his chief personal motive for so earnestly desiring an early opportunity of vindication. But apart from all this, as he was evidently made the representative in whose person the action of the seceding States was to be argued and decided, he yet more strongly desired for this rea son to Be heard in behalf of the defeated, but to him still sacred cause. The defeat he accepted, as a man has to accept all necessities of an accomplished fact; but to vindicate the theory and justice of his cause, showing by the authority of the Con stitution and the Fathers of the Country, that his people had only asserted a right--had committed no crime--this was his last remaining labor which life could impose on him as a public duty."...... "Mr. Davis expressed some anxiety as to his present illness. He was not one of those who, when in trouble, wished to die. Great invalids seldom had this wish, save when protracted suf fering had weakened the brain. Suicides were commonly of robuster class--men who had never been brought close to death nor thought much about it seriously. A good old Bishop once remarked, that 'dying was the last thing a man should think about,' and the mixture of wisdom and quaint humor in the phrase had impressed Mr. Davis. Even to Christians, with the hope of an immortal future for the soul, the idea of physical annihilation--of parting forever from the tenement of flesh in I " 514 RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH which we have had so many joys and sorrows--was one full of awe, if not terror. What it must be to the unbeliever, who entertained absolute and total annihilation as his prospect, he could not conceive. Never again to hear of wife or children, to take the great leap into vacuity, with no hope of meeting in a brighter and happier life the loved ones left behind, the loved ones gone before! "He had more reasons than other men, and now more than ever, to wish for some prolongation of life, as also to welcome death. His intolerable sufferings and wretched state argued for the grave as a place of rest. His duties to the cause he had represented, and his family, made him long to be continued on the footstool, in whatever pain or misery, at least until by the ordeal of a trial he could convince the world he was not the monster his enemies would make him appear, and that no willful departure from the humanities of war had stained the escutcheon of his people. Errors, like all other men, he had committed; but stretched now on a bed from which he might never rise, and looking with the eyes of faith which no walls could bar, up to the throne of Divine mercy, it was his comfort that no such crimes as men laid to his charge reproached him in the whispers of his conscience. " 'They charge me with crime, Doctor, but God knows my innocence. I endorsed no measure that was not justified by the laws of war. Failure is all forms of guilt in one to men who occupy my position. Should I die, repeat this for the sake of my people, my dear wife, and poor darling children. Tell the world I only loved America, and that in following my State I was only carrying out doctrines received from reverenced lips in my early youth, and adopted by my judgment as the convic tions of riper years.' ".... "September 6--Called upon Mr. Davis once or twice, I re member between the interval of my last date and this, but hav lost notes. Called today accompanied by Captain Titlow, officer-of-the-day, Third Pennsylvania Artillery, and found prisoner in more comfortable state of mind and body than he had enjoyed for some days. Healthy granulations forming in the carbuncle. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 515 "Mr. Davis said the clamor about 'treason' in our Northern newspapers was only an evidence how little our editors were qualified by education for their positions. None seemed to re member that treason to a State was possible, no less than to the United States; and between the horns of this dilemma there could be little choice. In the North, where the doctrine of State Sovereignty was little preached or practiced, this diffi culty might not seem so great; but in the South a man had pre sented the unpleasant alternatives of being guilty of treason to his State when it went out of the Union, by remaining what was called loyal to the Federal Government or being guilty of treason to the General Government by remaining faithful to his State. These terms appear to have little significance at the North, but were full of potency in the South ,and had to be regarded in every political calculation." "Dr. Craven's record of the Prison-Life of Mr. Davis continues until November 1865, when his earnest efforts in behalf of his prisoner, so far excited the ire of the powers that be, that he was at first forbidden to hold any intercourse with the pris oner, and afterward removed entirely. "But the treatment of Mr. Davis is now essentially changed. He has been removed to better quarters, is now supplied with adequate food, is allowed books, his family are permitted to see him, his friends; have access to him; land his petition in all things is now more nearly worthy the dignity of a great country, and suitable to his rank as an eminent State prisoner nd not as 2 convicted felon. "He and the country now await with interest his approaching trial. Thanks to the firmness of the President, the efforts of certain of the Radicals to bring him to a mock trial before a Military Commission, in which the result would be only a fore gone conclusion, has been thwarted, and he will undergo a Constitutional trial before the highest tribunal in the country. It is feared, however, by some that the'trial will never come off, but by one pretext or another, will be postponed from time to time, until the prisoner, harassed by hope deferred, and car ried into a fatal illness by his confinement, will die." (What a commentary is this upon the corruption of the officials!) "A ! '. J 516 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH fair, searching, exhaustive trial, in which the doctrine of State Sovereignty shall receive ventilation and logical assertion it has never yet received in which the limitations and conditions of the Government, under the Constitution, shall be examined by an acumen and learning never yet brought to bear upon the subject, would be a trial not of Jefferson Davis, but of the Republican party and its acts; and this trial the leaders and controllers of that party dare not meet. They may feel some assurance in the fact, that a conspicuous member of this party will preside at the trial; but the doctrine of State Sovereignty, if once authoritatively asserted by the Supreme Court, would palliate, if it did not justify secession, would render the present attitude of the party towards the Southern States untenable-- would thwart and check their scheme for centralization--would establish the unconstitutionally of many of their laws effecting the status of the citizens of the several States--would overthrow their whole theory of the Union, their platforms, their logic and their ambitions, and reassert the old Jeffersonian landmarks and principles. Will they dare stand this test? They may, re lying on the partisan proclivities of the Chief-Justice; but men who have studied the Constitution of the United States and com prehend its real significance and meaning-, need not fear to see the doctrine of State Sovereignty under which the seceding States acted, brought to the tribunals of the Court, need not fear for a moment the triumphant issue of the attempt to try Jeffer son Davis for treason." A few facts suggested by the foregoing should b.1 emphasized. His bed was only a few feet above the water level, and on the damp side of the fortress, resulting in neuralgic disorders and rapidly failing health. The removal of the shackles was due to the activity of Dr. J. J. Craven, and not to locks having been put on doors. Davis was treated as a condemned convict while in the eyes of the law he was innocent tilj proved guilty. CHAPTER XXXVHL THE FAILURE TO TRY DAVIS AND ITS MEANING. As an introduction to this sham trial a concise review of a few facts may not be out of order, as his crued treatment af firmed him many times guilty. On May the 8th Gen. Minty ordered that every effort be made "to capture or kill Davis the rebel President." The next day Gen. Wilson notified Gen. Upton that President Johnson had offered $100,000 reward for the capture of Jefferson Davis," implicating him "upon indisputable evidence" in the as sassination of Lincoln. Two days later, the 10th of May, Davis was captured at Irwinville, Ga., by Col. Pritchard, while sur rounded byTiis family and a few friends thinking himself secure from arrest under the Sherman armistice. Some irresponsible person reported that he was arrested while attempting to escape disguised in female attire. Although the least investigation would have exposed its falsity, yet Gen. Wilson reported it to the War Department as a fact. It was a sweet morsel to Gen. Wilson, Gen. Stanton and his Assistant Secretary, Dana, Stanton displaying his pleasure by writing to the Rev. T. J. Breckinbridge of Kentucky that "Mr. Davis was captured while trying to escape in his wife's clothes," and Dana showing his keen pleas ure by ordering Col Pritchard to send him "the woman's dress in which Mr. Davis was captured." On the 19th day of May the William P. Clyde cast anchor in Hampton Roads. Jefferson Davis with other distinguished prisoners was on board. With his arm in the firm grasp of the gallant (?) Miles and surrounded by a strong guard Mr. Davis was escorted in style to his carefully prepared cell in fortress Monroe, the strongest fort on the American Continent. He was there incarcerated in a dungeon only a few feet above the water level of the bay. Such was the dampness that "mould covered his shoes," and such the darkness that a lighted lamp was necessary day and night; and as to ventilation the very conditions declared it the worst possible. In front of the pris- 4 i 518 BICHAEDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH ' i, i oner's pallet paced two sentinels night and day, the lamp brightly burning. Every fifteen minutes, or no less than 96 times in every 24 hours, a commissioned officer verified the prisoner's presence. As if all this torture was not enough, within less than five days after his imprisonment heavy iron shackles, "about five-eights of an inch thick," fresh from the anvil, were riveted ; to his ankles. Within less than five other days Dr. Craven was Jr called upon to "pad" or "cushion" "the broad abrasions on his skin" made by the heavy irons. It was then Dr. Craven felt his "first thrill of sympathy" for his patient. The charge of murder having now been discarded as false, there remained only the charge of treason--a charge Davis was anxious to meet and the Government anxious to avoid. The great trouble was how to avoid it gracefully and without suspi cion of blame. There stood the prisoner accused of treason, un- , tried and uncondemned, yet treated as a convicted felon of i the worst type. Expecting to be tried for his life, he was denied the necessary books and all other means of preparing for his defense. Friends were denied him. Even his wife was denied, not only his presence, but also the hospitality of both Virginia and Maryland. Confined for months in that damp, dark, unventilated dungeon, no friendly voice greeted him ex cept as it came from the lips of Dr. Craven, his attending physi cian; and his sympathy cost him, by general order, no less than his official position. There is no lonesomeness so real as that of being alone while in the midst of an unsympathetic multitude. Here was Davis in a rock-ribbed prison, shackled and otherwise abused, with soldiers in front of him and soldiers behind him, soldiers to the t right of him an'd soldiers to the left of him; in the midst of a + solemnity that was torture, and a monotony that was nerve- destroying; with the solemnity and monotony punctured only by the sound of the beating waves outside and that of the meas ured steps of the silent sentinels within; in a low down dungeon as incapable of being ventilated as his tormentors were of sym pathy; in an atmosphere as damp as the dampest and as dark as the darkest, and yet an atmosphere far more cruel than it RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 519 was either damp or dark or both. Was ever lonesomeness greater than this? This was Davis's condition:--This his refined, condensed and prolonged torture. The wild and untutored savage knows how to torment and torture his victim. But the tortures of the sav age are only temporary and as the mere scratch of a pin in comparison to the physical, mental, and soul-piercing tortures to which Mr. Davis for many long months was subjected. It was this worse than savage cruelty that first moved the heart of Dr. Craven to sympathy. It was this too that touched the heart of Dr. Cooper, his successor, with sympathy. It was this cruelty that awoke sympathy in the breasts of the brave sentinels and through them found an outlet When once beyond the walls of the old fortress, whose silence was no longer possible, a chivalrous North and South caught the infection of sympathy and "commented severely on the treatment of the State prisoners, Davis and Clay." Gen. Miles, as if rebuked, in compliance with public sentiment was transferred to another post much against his will and earn est protest. The administration began to relax. Even the Sec retary of War was touched in a tender spot, and ordered 36 dollars a month to be paid "for furnishing the prisoners--Davis and Clay--with such food as they require, and for the payment of the laundresses who do their washing." What a change was this! What a power is public opinion when backed by a noble, patriotic and sympathetic press! Tigers were turned into lambs! As the summer of 1866 grew apace, Davis and his family were reunited. They were given "rooms in Carroll HaU, a commodious house within the bounds of the fort." Davis was given the freedom of the place. "His friends came from Bal timore, Washington and Richmond to pay their tribute of respect and devotion." What a pleasing contrast is this! Tt seems cruel now to turn our eyes again back to that very dark dungeon within a very dark dungeon. But it was in the midst of the deepest gloom ol these two cells that a ray of hope came from an unexpected source to cheer the very lone some and forlorn prisoner. It was in the shape of a note from 520 BICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH Charles O'Conor of New York, the acknowledged head of the legal profession in the United States. That note was dated June 2,1865. It was addressed to Jefferson Davis. As it sound ed the first note of Davis' defense we give it here. It reads as follsw: "Gentlemen who have no personal acquaintance with yourself, and who never had any connection by birth, residence or other wise with any of the Southern States, have requested me to volunteer as counsel for the defense, in case you should be ar raigned upon an indictment which has been announced in the newspapers. No less in conformity with my own sense of pro priety than in compliance with their wishes, I beg leave to tender my services accordingly. I will be happy to attend, at any time and place you may indicate, in order to confer with your self or others in relation to the defense. The Department of War having given its assent to the transmission of this letter through the proper military authorities, I infer that if my pro fessional aid be accepted, you will have full permission to con fer with me in writing and orally at personal interviews, as you may judge desirable." This letter must have awakened in Mr. Davis every emotion of gratitude. It made it clear to him and the Administration that others than Southerners stood at his back ready to defend him. The natural impulse of Mr. Davis, prompted him to an swer this note at once. But he had neither paper, pen, nor ink. The handwriting on the wall was seen. There was quaking in the knees. The clock of caution had struck the momentous hour. The responsibility of furnishing Mr. Davis with ithe necessary paper, pen and ink was too great for the politic Miles. Hence on the 6th of June, he telegraphed Gen. Townsend as follows: "General, shall I furnish Jefferson Davis with writing material to answer Mr. Q'Conor's letter?" Gen. Townsend replied: "The Secretary of War says you may furnish suf ficient for the specific purpose." (121 War of Rebellion 642.) Mr. Davis' letter in reply was rejected by Mr. Stanton, Mr. Seward and Mr. Speed as "an improper communication." Mr. Davis struck out "the improper language" and again it BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 521 was rejected. If any reply ever reached Mr. O'Conor the records do not disclose the fact (121 War of Rebellion 655-7). What did it mean? What could it mean? As we have seen in the previous chapter an effort was made to try Mr. Davis by a military commission, but was early aban doned by all the officials except Gen. Holt, the Judge Advocate. Accordingly it was arranged that Mr. Davis should be "indicted at the May term (1865) of the United States Court at Norfolk over which Judge Underwood was to preside. This was to be done, despite the fact that the Judge had previously been of the opinion that 'rebellion' had become a civil war of too great proportions to make it proper and expedient to indict its leaders for treason." He was nevertheless indicted by this same Judge Underwood, and the District Attorney at once moved for a bench warrant, which was refused. Why? Amid the doubts and fears and confusions of the Court an elephant confronted them. The indictment was lost but the huge elephant remained in the shape of the Constitution--too large to lose. "An indictment against Mr. Davis was also found in the Dis trict of Columbia." But it, lika the one at Norfolk, was also consigned to oblivion. On the 10th of August President Johnson asked Chief Justice Chase for a conference in reference to the "time, place, and man ner of the trial of Jefferson Davis." What took place in that conference has never been divulged, (121 War of Rebillion 71516.) The conditions were nervous. On the 21st day of September, 1865, the Senate asked the President for information on the trial of Jefferson Davis, but the President was silent for three months and sixteen days, wait ing till the 7th of January, 1866. It was then decided (?) that he should be tried in the State of Virginia, and that the Chief Justice should preside. But the Chief Justice refused to hold the Court, for reasons of his own. A general outcry was heard against the unconstitutional delay of the trial. The Senate becoming impatient under the influ ence of this outcry, nine days later (January 16) called on the President for the correspondence between himself and the Chief Justice. From that correspondence it was learned that 522 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH the Chief Justice was unwilling to hold Court so long as mar tial law prevailed in Virginia. Who does not know that the ; power that called the martial law into existence would have an- ' nulled it? Why should a local martial law interfere with a civil case of concern to the entire nation? // was anything for an excuse. Thus delay followed delay with no plausible excuse. The 1 1,' real excuse was withheld. It was the Constitution. It stood I* 1 a mighty bulwark of defence in favor of the accused. The North had waged war against the South on the ground that secession , was unconstitutional and hence rebellious. Now that the ques tion is about to be submittd to the highest tribunal of the Nation the Administration shrinks from the trial. If Davis should be acquitted, the great responsibility of that stupendous war with f all its death record, with all its sorrows, its hardships, its de- ; struction of property, and disorganization of society, would be- j' long to the Republican party and the Administration. More than that, all the wrongs saddled upon the leaders of the South m the name of the Constitution would be laid at the same door. More still, all the false representations of the Governmental of ficials to foreign nations would constitute one of the blackest pages in all the deceptive records that distinguished that unjust war from beginning to end. So long as the voice of the Courts, the great Civil tribunals that should have settled all questions of disputes between the two sections, was silenced by war's usur pations, tyranny was bold and rampant. But now all the forces at the back of tyranny and usurpation are scattered. Civil law again reigns supreme. The Courts again have come into their own, and judges unterrified again represent the majesty of the law. But the authors of that war are still in control of the , executive department of the Government. They have virtually ' sworn that a decision, involving the justice of that war, shall never be rendered by the highest court tribunal in the world. 1, Knowing in 1861, that the Law and the Constitution and the Right were on the side of the South, they dissembled, and in augurated war. Now that the war is over, and the one eminent :( and distinguished representative of the cause of the South is clamorous and anxious for a trial they again dissemble. They EICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 523 proclaim the righteousness of their cause by the exercise of the basest cruelty.the only test they dare give of the justice of the cause they espoused. Because of unconstitutional delays and unconstitutional pro ceedings, men of all parties and all sections begin to demand "the discharge of Davis from custody either on bail or on parole." Gen. Bradly Johnson has given a report of the trial (?) of Mr. Davis in which he details the slow process of obtaining a trial, and gives a summary of the reasons prepared by Charles O'Conor why Mr. Davis should not be tried for treason. (Chase's Circuit Court Reports). Gen. Johnson is authority that what was said or done by each actor was submitted to him for his approval, and was not published until corrected by him. The report is therefore doubly valuable. The following is a quotation from Mr. O'Conor's reasons why Mr. Davis should not be tried for treason: "When rebels and traitors oppose their Government by open violence and are summarily put down, those not slain in the combat may fairly be tried for treason in the civil courts and dealt with as ordinary criminals. The transaction constitutes only a species of riot. But far different results nsue when rebellion maintains itself so long and so effectively as to compel between itself, its people, and its territory, on the one hand, and the lawful Government on the other, the institution and ac ceptance of rules and usages which obtain in regular wars be tween independent nations. Amongst men claiming to have at tained a high civilization, war is recognized as a State or condi tion governed by law. In its conduct or at its close, sight is not lost of mortality or justice. If successful the rebels acquire the power of establishing an independent State, which all men regard as not only legitimate, but honorable in its origin; if they fail, the victor may be as indulgent as he will, or, as far as he dare, may consecrate to his revenge the field of his ruin. What ever severity can be justified at the bar of public opinion may be practiced; and certainly no more should be exercised. To the latter proposition every magnanimous spirit will assent Washington might have failed; Kosciusko did fail. 524 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH After an open territorial war of this kind had existed for four years, it might be thought by some that the rebels were still criminal violators of municipal law, and that they ought to be dealt with as such. By way of reasoning it might be urged that the extent of their operations merely in tensified their guilt, and should not in any way. affect the ques tion. But this reasoning, if such it may be called, proves too much. On the fall of the rebellious State, after sustaining a belligerent attitude for one hundred years, its chiefs and leaders might with equal propriety be brought to trial as traitors in civil courts, although they and their ancestosr had for several generations been uniformly regarded and treated as public ene mies, carrying on war against the ultimate victor, a regular national war. This can not be admitted. The law of nature forbids it; and there are broad and comprehensible doctrines deducible from the universal practice of nations which forbid it And these doctrines are founded in necessity. ****** "These views induced the belief that Jefferson Davis could not lawfully be convicted of treason, and to compass his death by means of a civil trial, judgment and execution, would be disgraceful to those who administered the Government and dis creditable to our own people. Therefore, gentlemen at the North entertaining strong opinions against the right and act of secession united in requesting counsel to interpose a defence should any thing of the kind be attempted." (Chase's Reports, pp. 12, 14, 17). Mr. O'Conor does not base this .defence on the right of se cession, for it was not necessary, and would have been impo litic under the circumstances, but on the ground that the South "had compelled the institution and acceptance of the rules and usages which obtain in regular wars between independent na tions." The Government either knew or ''id not know that "amongst men claiming to have attained to a high state of civ ilization, war is recognized as a state or condition governed by law." If the Government knew this, it was willfully cruel and savagely unrelenting, and deserved all the condemnation civilization has heaped upon it. If the Government did not RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 525 know this, the fact proves an inexcusable ignorance and entitles it to the condemnation of the civilized world. It also shows that just as ignorance of the Constitution inaugurated the war, so now ignorance of the rules and usages of war between civ ilized communities, and of what constitutes treason, was dis gracing the Government, and through the Government the na tion, by its savage-like unrelenting cruelty to the most distin guished representative of a defeated Government that had in good faith laid down its arms Between knowledge and ignor ance, it is perhaps more charitable to place the mantle of ignor ance over the causes that led to so much bloodshed, to so much devastation, and to such unparallelled cruelty, than to attribute it to willful violation of law and of the usages of war between civilized people. It is however difficult to understand how the United States Government could have been ignorant of the "broad and com prehensible doctrines deducible from the universal practice of nations"--"doctrines founded in necessity." Northern states men knew "that Jefferson Davis could not lawfully be convicted of treason, and to compass his death by means of a civil trial, judgment and execution would be disgraceful to those who ad ministered the Government and discreditable to our people." Why should not Johnson and his Cabinet have known it? We are facing facts pregnant with meaning. Who can interpret them to the honor and glory of this great American Republic? If it would have been disgraceful to have thus compassed the death of Mr. Davis, was it not equally as disgraceful to have incarcerated, shackled and otherwise treated him as a criminal ? On the 8th of May 18C6, an indictment was found against Jefferson Davis in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. It presented.... "Jefferson Davis late of the city of Richmond in the county of Henrico, in the District of Virginia, aforesaid, yeoman, be ing an inhabitant of and residing within the United States of America, not having the fear of God before his eyes, nor weigh ing the duty of his said allegiance, but being moved by the in stigation of the Devil, and wickedly devising, intending the peace and tranquility of the United States of America to disturb j' 26 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH ' ^ i! and the Government of tlie United States of America to sub- ; vert, and to stir, and move, and incite insurrection, rebellion and war against the United States of America, on the 15th day ; of May 1864 in the city of Richmond," etc. What an indictment is this! It favors the theory of ignor ance on the part of the Government. Examine its date--8th of May 1866. Note the date on which Davis "moved by the ., instigation of the Devil," and without "the fear of God before '' his eyes," wickedly devised and intended to disturb the peace and subvert the Government," and to stir, and move and incite insurrection, rebellion and war against the United States." It was on the 15th day of May 1864, more than three years after the secession of the States. Were the two battles of Manassas no rebellion? Was McClelland's Peninsular Campaign waged ^ against no rebellion? Did Lee force McClelland to seek the cover of his gunboats without being guilty of rebellion? Did }< Johnston win the battle of Shiloh without being guilty of re bellion? Did Lee march his invincibles into Maryland and Pennsylvania, striking terror to the heart of Washington, and yet was not guilty of rebellion? The great war, called the re bellion, was about three years old on the 15th day of May, 1864. Was it miscalled rebellion up to that time? Why name the 15th day of May as the peculiar day on which Davis was possessed of the Devil ? The 15th day of May, 1864, and the 8th day of May, 1866, are witnesses in favor of the theory of ignorance on the part of the Government, and yet their testimony smacks of the incredible. Did the Government actually intend to say Davis committed treason on the 15th day of May, 1864, and that he was guilty of treason on the 8th day of May, 1865? Let him who would have an answer consult the facts. (' On the 5th day of June, 1866, Messrs. James T. Brady, of ( New York, William B. Read of Philadelphia, James Lyon and * Robert Ould of Richmond appeared in the Court for the city of Richmond as counsel for Mr. Davis, and through Mr. Read 1 in very terse and clear language asked the Court what was to be done with the indictment, and whether it was to be tried. This last question, he said, he probably had no right to ask, but he ' claimed the right to that speedy and public trial guaranteed RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 527 by the Constitution, and wanted to know when and where that trial was to be had?' Note the facts: "Major J. S. Hennessy, the Assistant United States Attorney for the District, replied that Mr. Chandler, the District Attorney, was absent, and he was not prepared to an swer." Why was not Mr. Chandler there? If he knew he could not be present why had he not instructed Major Hennes sy, his assistant? The matter was laid over till the next morning. Note the facts. When the next morning came Mr. Chandler was still absent. But Mr. Hennessy read a paper in which he set forth that Mr. Davis was not in the custody of the Court, and was beyond its control; that the District Attorney was so much en gaged with official duties that he could not attend; and thirdly that Mr. Davis was too unwell to stand a long trial at that sea son of the year. For these reasons he moved the Court to lay the matter over until the first Monday in next October." "Mr. Brady replied that it was true that in a technical sense, Mr. Davis was not in the custody of the Court, but that was a plea for Mr. Davis to make if he wanted delay. On the con trary he waived any such plea and demanded a speedy trial; and that as to the heat of the weather, Mr. Davis could stand it in Richmond as well as at Fortress Monroe, and his counsel would willingly serve him under any conditions." Here stands a prisoner to whom the Constitution grants a speedy trial. Yet, as we see, the most flimsy excuses are given by the prosecution for delay. The prosecution at last found out that Davis was sick, and in the name of sympathy pleaded for him to be longer imprisoned in fortress Monroe. What duty could the prosecuting Attorney, Chandler, have had more im portant than trying a man, charged with treason, "instigated by the Devil?" Yet he was "so much engaged (?) with official duties that he could not attend the trial!" Judge Underwood stated that the Chief Justice"was to preside at the trial and that he could not be present until the first Tues day in Ofctober, to which day the cause was adjourned. The United States judges and United States officials must have agreed 528 RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH with Thad Stevens in the opinion that "there is no Constitu tion." "On the 7th of June (next day) Messers. Charles O'Conor of New York, Thomas G. Platt, ex-Governor of Maryland, repre senting Mr. Davis; and Mr. Speed the Attorney General repre senting the Government, waited on Chief Justice Chass at his residence to ascertain whether he would entertain a motion to release Mr. Davis on bail. The Chief Justice, without any for mal application for bail, announced that he considered it im proper for him to act in this matter so long as the State of Virginia was under military rule; and that he would not act until the writ of Habeas Corpus was fully restored, and martial law abrogated. His opinion on this subject is set out in full in Gen. Johnson's report: "Mr. O'Conor and Mr. Shea of New York, as counsel for Mr. Davis, also made application subsequently to Judge Under wood in the Attorney General's office in Washington. He also declined on the same grounds as those given by Judge Chase. The President, the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, and Judge Underwood all intimated their desire to grant the release, but each found some refined Constitutional objection to gratify their wishes, and the result of their self-denial was that Mr. Davis remained in custody." (The Trial & Trials of Jeffer son Davis, pp. 5-6.) The report of the Committee, headed by Col. Turner, to which we have referred, stated that no further legislation was necessary to aid the courts in bringing Davis to trial, and that it was the duty of the Executive Department of the Government to do so. Therefore the Executive inquired of the Attorney General what yet remained for him to do that Mr. Davis might be tried. The answer of the Attorney General was made on the 12th of Oc tober. In it he said to the President, "It was only necessary for him to order the keeper of the Fort Monroe jail to deliver Mr. Davis up to the Marshal of the District of Virginia on proper application." But the Attorney General set forth many reasons why the Court could not sit, why it had not convened on the 6th of Octo ber, to which day it had adjourned; that by an act of Congress RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 529 the Court to be held in Richmond was to convene on the 1st Monday in May and 4th Monday in November; and that this act of Congress abrogated the special term fixed for October. It was further held that Congress had changed the judicial cir cuits ; and that this change required a new allotment which only the Supreme Court could make, and not by this Court till it met. During all these intrigues and excuses, Davis was a pris oner in Fortress Monroe anxiously demanding a trial as his absolute right under the terms of the Constitution. Chas. M. Blackford an eminent Virginia lawyer, in an address on "The Trials and Trial of Jefferson Davis," delivered in 1900 before the annual meeting of the Virginia Bar Association, com menting on the expressions of desire by the officials to see jus tice done while "something always rose to prevent their carrying out their philanthropic wishes," used these very pertinent words: "The historian of the future with all the light which will then illumine his research, will tear away the flimsy veil and show that Mr. Davis was so long kept in confinement to gratfiy the personal bitterness of men who had once been his associates, and well knew the dignity and purity of his character." The civilization of the United States blushes for the civil Gov ernment of our country when the humanity of its officials is com pared with that of the commanding officers of the military de partments. Grant was generous and merciful to an extreme. His noble soul knew no other impulse. Sherman was equally noblehearted and generous as Grant, giving "amnesty to all persons both military and civil." When Johnston and Breckinridge and Reagan called his attention to these particular words, he replied, "I mean just that," adding "it is the only way to have perfect peace."' Sherman and Grant were statesmen in comparison with whom President Johnson and his Cabinets were pigmies in offi cial garb. When you touch the chords of nobility of soul you awake vibrations that charm the Southerner's heart. Sheridan and Thomas had kindred hearts to those of Grant and Sherman. It was so with all the field officers of the Union army with only a very few exceptions. Notable among the exceptions is Gen. Miles, and he perhaps did not appreciate the true character and the true dignity of an American military officer. Elevated from J' 530 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH Vi ,| ; . a clerkship in a Boston mercantile house to the rank of General, : he lost his head and was bigoted, fanatical, intolerant and ex- ; tremely cruel. Mercy, justice and respect characterized the mil itary commanders as a rule. They had stood where hate had no foothold, and had measured swords with an enemy whose chiv alry they honored. Chivalry is the same exalted principle upon ., whichever side it stands. The brave are tender and compas- l ', sionate. In the first battle of Cold Harbor a Confederate Lieu- 1' tenant in the front line of a charging column approaching a wounded soldier in blue, hurriedly transferred his own canteen , full of water to that of his wounded enemy and passed on in the victorious charge, followed by the benedictions of the soldier in blue. Less than 48 hours previous this same Lieutenant had bent over the dying form of a brave brother on the field of * battle. Compare this act with that of Seward when asked by , Davis's attorneys for assistance. Pointing to the scar on his ' neck, made by the assassin's knife, he said "You hardly expect me to aid you." On the 20th of May, 1866 Surgeon Cooper's reports as to the health of Mr. Davis were made public. They created an indignation which found voice in the newspapers of all parties and all sections. We quote but a word from the New York World in its comment on this report as a specimen: "The American people, should these stories prove true, will have a serious account to settle with the functionaries who could thus misrepresent and belittle them in the eyes of Christendom and of history." Similar articles appeared in other newspapers of all sections, condemning the refusal of the common courtesies of life to a man "who for four years wielded the resources of eleven bellig- \ erent States against the whole power of the Union." ^ Thus the functionaries in charge of the Government at Wash ington were condemned in most bitter and most unrelenting ' terms, while the military officers, as a rule, presented untarnished shields to the light of civilization. The chivalry of the South delights in honoring a magnanimous chivalry of soul in the army of the North. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 531 We shall now quote freely from the "Trial and Trials of Jefferson Davis" by Chas. M. Blackford, the gifted Virginia lawyer. "On the first day of May, 1867, Judge Underwood opened the Circuit Court of the United States at Richmond, when George Shea, of New York, as counsel for Mr. Davis, filed a petition for habeus corpus. It was granted, and on the 10th was served on Brigadier-General Henry S. Burton, successor of Gen. Miles as commandant at Fort Monroe, who after obtaining the per mission of the President, brought Mr. Davis to Richmond. "Deep anxiety was felt about the trial, which, it was believed, would begin on Monday, the 13th of May. On that day the streets were filled with nervous people and great crowds sur rounded and packed the stairway and passages of the Custom House where the Court room is situated. Mr. Davis, his coun sel and Ge'n. Burton and his staff were at the Spottswood Hotel. The Court was to sit at eleven o'clock, but long before that time many persons had secured positions in the Court-room by per mits issued by the marshal. In this way seats were secured for a few ladies, the reporters and a number of distinguished visitors. "A few minutes before eleven the counsel for the defense en tered the Court-room. They were a very distinguished group: Mr. Charles O'Conor, the leader of the bar in the United States; William B. Read, of Philadelphia; George Shea of New York, both high in the ranks of their profession; John Randolph Tucker, already distinguished as a Constitutional lawyer and late Attorney General of Virginia; Robert Ould, the most skillful debater and logical speaker of his day, and Mr. James Lyons, who had long been prominent in the courts of this State. "It is seldom that any case has brought together a more dis tinguished array. The Government was represented by Mr. Evarts, the Attorney General of the United States, also a leader of the bar of New York, and a man of learning, high culture and refinement; Mr. Chandler, a northern resident of Virginia, who could take the iron-clad oath, was District Attorney. Besides the Counsel engaged in the case there were a number of other men of mark, both civil and military; among them may be men- 532 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH tioned Judge J. A. Meredith, the Irish patriot; Gustavus A. Meyers, and Generals Schofield, Granger, Brown, Imboden, John Minor Botts. A few moments before the clock struck eleven' the large doors were thrown open and the crowd rushed in and filled every spot outside the bar. At eleven Horace Greely entered the room, and there was a buzz of interest. The ob ject of his visit was known, and excited much good-feeling to ward him, which was exhibited by kindly comment from the crowd and many cordial shakes of the hand by men inside the bar. "When Judge Underwood came in, the proclamation was made. After the proclamation there was a hush of expectation and all eyes strained to catch the first glimpse of the distinguished prisoner. As said before, he was at the Spottswood Hotel, in front of which a vast crowd was gathered to see him come out. Carriages were arranged in front of the hotel as if to take him and his party, but to avoid the crowd the proprietor had caused a coach to be brought into the court-yard in the rear, and while the crowd were standing expectant in front, Mr. Davis, Gen. Burton, Dr. Cooper, of the United States army, and Mr. Burton Harrison got into the carriage and were driven rapidly by a circuitous route to the Custom House. The crowd did not dis cover that they had been outwitted until he had reached his des tination. "On the arrival of the party at the Custom House they were taken to the conference room by a private way and thence at once entered the court room, where he was escorted by Gen. Burton to a comfortable chair with more of the manner of a sympathizing friend than that of his keeper. Mr. Davis was much worn and showed the marks of extreme feebleness, but he looked cheerful and bright and bowed to his many friends and shook hands with a few who were nearest. "As soon as he had taken his seat Judge Underwood, who was incapable of appreciating the dignity of his official position, said, turning to the United States army officers who were pres ent, 'The court is honored on this occasion by the presence of so many of the nation's noblest and bravest defenders that the usual morning routine will be omitted.' The sentiment so far RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 533 as it refers to the spectators, is unobjectionable, but its utter ance on such an occasion has no parallel in judicial conduct since Jeffries held his court at Taunton. "Gen. Burton then presented Mr. Davis to the Court in obedi ence to the writ of habeas corpus. In reply the judge tendered him the thanks of the Court "for his prompt and graceful obedi ence to its writ He has 'thus added another to the many laurels he has gained upon the battle-fields of his country." Imagine Chief Justice Marshall, who once presided in the same Court in a great trial for treason, effusively tendering his thanks to any one who obeyed the mandate of his writ. Inter arma silent leges had so long been the prevailing condition in the land that this abasement of the ermine attracted no attention. "After this display of gratitude, the judge declared that the prisoner had now 'passed under the protection of American Re publican law' and was in the custody of the marshal. "What species of law that was it is hard to explain, and when it is remembered that, though ever clamoring for his constitu tional right to a speedy trial, it was over three years before it was awarded him, the difficulty in understanding him is in creased. "The prisoner having thus passed from the control of martial law into that of this 'republican law,' Mr. O'Conor announced that the defense was ready and desired a trial. To this Mr. Evarts replied that the case would not be heard at that term, to which, of course, the judge assented. Motion for bail was then made, and by the practical consent of the prosecution it was granted and the penalty was fixed at $100,000, but this was not effected until Judge Underwood had interpolated a stump speech, lauding the Government of the United States and the beneficence of its administration. "The bail-bond in the usual form of such bonds was thez' given. The sureties were Horace Greely, Augustus Schill, Horace F. Clark, Gerrit Smith, and Cornelius Vanderbilt, of New York; Welch and David K. Jackman, of Philadephia; R. Barton Haxall, Isaac Davenport, Abraham Warwick, Gustavus A. Meyers, John 534 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH Minor Botts, Thomas W. Doswell, James Thomas, Thomas Price, and several others of Virgina. "When the bond was duly executed, the marshal was directed to discharge the prisoner, which was done amid deafening ap plause. "The streets around the Custom House were crowded with people awaiting the result. As soon as the decision was announced someone ran to the main street window of the Custom House and shouted 'The President is bailed!' A mighty roar of ap plause went up from the people below, which was taken up and echoed and re-echoed from street to street and house to house, though strange to say a considerable period of time elapsed be fore the crowd on the Bank street were informed of the result, then they joined most heartily in the shouts. A company of United States infantry had been brought up to the door of the Custom House when Mr. Davis was carried in by Gen. Burton. No one has ever yet known what became of them. They van ished in the uproar, doubtless rejoicing that they were relieved of the ignoble function which had been assigned to them, as jailers. "Some time elapsed before the bond was signed and the order of release was entered. Then Mr. Davis left the room, and with Mr. O'Conor on one side and Mr. Ould on the other, came out of the Custom House door on Bank Square. They were greeted with a sound which was not a cheer or hurrah, but that fierce yell which was first heard at Manassas, and had been the note of victors at Cold Harbor, at Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, and wherever battle was fiercest. "The trio got into an open carriage and drove to the Spottswood Hotel, at the corner of Main and Eighth Streets. As they moved amidst the rejoicing crowd, the rebel yell was their only applause, their happiest greeting. It was the outburst of brave men who could best give their expression to their indignation for what was past and their joy for the present. "As the carriage approached the hotel, all sounds ceased, and a deep and solemn silence fell upon the crowd, less demonstra tive than yell, but more tender in its sympathy. As Mr. Davis stood up in the carriage, preparatory to alighting, a stentorian RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 696 voice, 'Hats off, Virginians', and five thousand bare-headed men did homage to him who had suffered for them, and with moisten ed eyes and bated breath, stood silent and still until their repre sentative entered the hotel. "The treatment which the Federal Government had imposed upon Mr. Davis had made him a martyr; the applause was an attestation of that fact. Around the court-room were thousands of men who met danger and suffered loss. Each man felt that Davis had suffered vicariously for him. If Davis was a traitor, so was he. If Davis should suffer the penalties of law, so should he. This it was which made the feeling so intense. "The Southern people had profound respect for Mr. Davis per sonally because of his pure character and intellectural abilities, but for him there was no such deep and abiding devotion as for Lee and many of the other military chieftans. Mr. Davis im personated their failure; the Generals their brilliant success as long as success was possible. But when the victors charged him falsely with crimes abhorent to his nature, put him under ward and manacled him as a felon, and then indicted him as a traitor, he became their martyred hero, and history will so record him." What did the Athenians gain by putting Socrates to death? They but rendered him doubly immortal and endeared his name to all races and all times. What did the Samoans gain by burn ing Pythagoras at the stake? The light of that fire is as en during as that of the sun. What did the Jews gain by the cruci fixion of Christ? His is the one name which marks the center of time. What did the Federal Government gain by their savage treatment of Davis? They have but immortalized him and his cause. They have but given him a name that will rank with the best, the noblest, and the greatest of any age. Injustice and hate are mere shadows of a day, but principles are eternal, and their might and their light, though often overwhelmed and crushed, never die. The chivalry of the eleven States, at the head of which stood their "uncrowned king," their vicarious martyr, will grow in admiration and luster as the ages add to the circles of time. "At the November term, 1867, Mr. Evarts, the Attorney Gen eral, was present, representing the prosecution before Judge 536 BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH Underwood. Mr. Davis, through his counsel, was ready, earn estly demanding a trial. "The Government asked that the trial be put off until the succeeding March to suit the convenience of the Chief Justice. The defense was anxious for Judge Chase to preside, so it con sented to the delay. "On the 26th day of March, 1868, a new indictment was found against the prisoner charging him in many counts with many acts of treason, conspicuous among which was 'conspiring with Robert E. Lee, J. P. Benjamin, John C. Breckinridge, William Malone, H. A. Wise, John Letcher, William Smith, Jubal A. Early, James Longstreet, William H. Payne, D. H. Hill, A. P. Hill, G. T. Beauregard, W. H. C. Whiting, Ed Sparrow, Samuel Cooper, Joseph E. Johnston, J. B. Gordon, C. F. Jackson, F. O. Moore, and with other persons whose names are to the grand jury unknown, to make war against the United States; fighting the battle of Manassas, appointing one Giradi, then acting as Cap tain, to command a brigade, and one Mahone, to be MajorGeneral; fighting a battle near Petersburg in company with R. E. Lee and others, and another at Five Forks, all of which things were done traitorously, unlawfully, maliciously and wickedly.' "The various historic acts, styled crimes in this lengthy docu ment, were proved before the grand jury by the following wit nesses summoned for the purpose: R. E. Lee, James A. Seddon, C. B. Duffield, John Letcher, G. Wyther Munford, John B. Baldwin, Charles E. Wortham, and Thomas S. Haygood." Is there nothing in the fact that no less than twenty illustrious names besides that of the prisoner are charged with the same crime of treason, and yet not one of them is arraigned before the Court? Does not this fact alone bear evidence that the whole trial is a farce? Yea, more than this--R. E. Lee, the most eminent citizen of his century, if not of the age, is charged with the same crime, and yet was summoned as a witness in the case. A man whose virtues equaled, if they did not excel, his courage and skill on the field of battle, charged with the crime of treason, was called from his own free pursuits of high and noble purpose to testify against himself. Was ever a farce like this? Why did not that grand jury summon the Constitution? That would BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 537 have been summoning the immortal framers of that instrument from their graves, who "though dead yet speak." That was the last witness they wished to hear. "On the finding of this indictment the trial was continued until the the 2nd day of May, 1868, then to the 3rd day of June, and then again until the fourth Monday in November, when it was arranged that the Chief Justice should be present This date was again changed to the 3rd of December in the same year." What did all these changes mean but a solemn, a fixed, and a heart-and-head conviction of the innocence of Davis as to the charge of treason? "During this delay the 'fourteenth amendment to the Constitu tion was adopted and became a part of the organic law of the land. The third section of that article reads as follows: " 'No person shall be Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President or Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Con stitution of the Unted States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; but Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'" This was a very sweeping clause. Ingenuity could not have made it more so. It assumed that we Confederates were all guiltj- of rebellion, and hence of treason. Had it been as correct in its assumptions as it was sweeping in its exclusive details, Davis and all of us should have been hung. But with all the painstaking of its authors, this very amendment was made the basis of quashing the indictment against Davis. And a very peculiar fact about it is, that the suggestion was made to Davis's counsel by the Chief Justice of the United States. That high official knew Davis was not guilty of treason. He knew that ignorant and rash officials had compromised the dignity and honor of the Government, and had involved the Governnvn* in complications of the most serious character. He had called to his aid the ablest lawyers of the North, and the more light that 538 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH was focused en the subject, the clearer was the proof that the South had the Constitution on her side. Doubtless all the delays and all the postponements in this so-called trial were due to the fact that the Supreme Court of the Nation was nervously and constantly in search of some plausible ground on which to release Davis. The eagle eye of the Chief Justice at last found it in this amendment. Davis as a member of Congress had in 1845 taken the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, "and had after wards engaged in insurrection and. rebellion, as charged in the indictment. Such crime, if crime it was, had been already pun ished by the penalties and disabilities denounced against and inflicted upon him thereafter by the third section of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution. General Bradly T. Johnson has written that he had it from Messers. O'Conor and Ould that this point was suggested by the Chief Justice." (Blackford p. 61). It was known that the sectional prejudices of Judge Under wood would never permit him to indorse this view of the case, and that with Chief Justice Chase's decision there would be a divided Court--so much the better for the purposes in view. "Preparatory to the motion to quash on the ground, set forth above, Mr. Ould filed in open Court his own affidavit that on the 8th day of December, 1845, Mr. Davis on taking his seat in the House of Representatives, as a member from Mississippi, had taken the oath to support the Constitution of the United States. He then moved for a rule on the attorney of the United States to show cause why the indictment should not be quashed. "On Thursday, the 3rd of December, 1868, the question, aris ing under the rule, was taken up in the Circuit Court of the United States, sitting at Richmond, with Judges Chase and Under wood on the bench, and the real and final trial of Mr. Davis began" but never materialized. "There was not as much pomp and ceremony, nor as much dramatic effect as at the trial of Warren Hastings, nor has any such master of the art of word painting as McCaulay ever described it. In some respects, however, the scenes were alike, despite the difference in the character of the prisoners and in the style of crimes with which charged. In each case the prisoner RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 538 at the bar was a man of high intelligence and strong will. Each had ruled an Empire. Hastings had governed a vast territory with many millions of population, and had added a continent to the crown of England. Davis had been the chosen leader of eleven commonwealths combined under him into a constitutional government which had met great armies and great captains in the field, and for 'four years, against desperate odds, and dependent solely on its own resources, had accomplished mighty deeds, won brilliant victories, and challenged the admiration of the civilized world by its sturdy fortitude and by the heroic defense of what it regarded right. "The very indictment against Jefferson Davis was the cata logue of the great acts of a sovereign--a sovereign who con spired with Lee and Jackson and the Johnstons, with Stuart and Forrest and Kirby Smith and Taylor, and many others to fight such battles as the two Manassas, the seven at Richmond, the two at Fredericksburg, and the bloody fields of Gettysburg, the Wilderness, Chancellorsville and Spottsylvania. "Great publicists like Chase and O'Conor and Evarts knew that the law and the custom of nations did not look upon such deeds as those of a traitor, and that the world stood aghast at the effort to thus debase the principles of international justice: but President Johnson and Judge Underwood, at a safe distance, would have read the riot act to the rebel army, and then held for feited to the gallows the life of every gallant man who did not at once lay down his arms. "Mr. Davis sat behind his counsel on the day of his final trial, much improved since his last appearance in the same room. He was not an unworthy hero for such a scene. His eyes flashed with intellectural fire, his nervous energy was still alert, though his physical strength was much wasted. As he sat in the midst of the distinguished group, he was easily primus inter pares. His calm dignity and his dauntless courage inspired the zeal of his defenders and won the respect of those whose official duty it was to prosecute. He sat at that court arraigned for the crimes of a great people, a sovereign called upon to answer for the misdemeanor of an empire. His mien and bearing proved him worthy of the disunity of the position I 540 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH "The Chief Justice of the United States presided, and it is with pleasure that it can be recorded that he well maintained the functions of his high office. He occupied the same position which was held by Chief Justice Marshall in that other great trial, when Aron Burr stood indicted for treason at the same bar, and to his credit be it said, he was equally just and impartial. "The somewhat notorius Underwood sat by his side, but the arguments of counsel were, it is said by eye-witnesses, addressed only to the Chief Justice. Mr. O'Conor especially ignored his very existence, and the Chief Justice seemed to forget that he was beside him on the bench, except when, with the effrontery of ignorance, he exercised his right to dissent. The late Robert Whitehead, of Nelson, who was present, wrote that some time during the session of the Court something was said about the difficulty of securing an impartial jury in Richmond. Judge Underwood, with a wave of his hand towards the gallery packed with negroes, said he could easily secure a jury; but the sugges tion was treated by Judge Chase with the contempt it deserved. Be it known that this man wore the ermine of a judge presiding in a high court of justice, and justice is not herself unless im partial. "Of the many counsels for Mr. Davis, only four were selected to appear for him on that day, Messrs Charles O'Conor, Robert Ould, William B. Read and James Lyons; and of these Messrs. O'Conor and Ould were especially designated to make the argu ment on the motion to quash. "For the Government there appeared the newly appointed Dis trict Attorney S. Ferguson Beach, Richard H. Dana, Jr., of Boston, and H. H. Wells, who had been the military appointee as Governor of Virginia. The Attorney-General, Mr. Evarts, was not present, it being stated that 'official duties rendered it impossible for him to be present.'" Here was a trial supposed to involve issues of the most trans cendent importance--the honor of the Government itself, and the right of the Government to coerce the South. What official duties of greater importance could have "rendered it" necessary for the Attorney-General to have been absent? Does it not look RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 541 like the Government knew in advance what the Court's decision would be? "A demand was made for a written specification of the point upon which the motion to quash was made. This was soon written out by Mr. O'Conor, and the argument was opened by Mr. Ould in a speech of great clearness and logic. "At the close of Mr. Quid's speech the Chief Justice said that he was not surprised, as intimated by Mr. Dana, at the ground taken by the defendant. The course of the argument, he said, was anticipated, as the point urged was the common principle of constructive repeal. "Mr. Beach then opened for the Government, and Mr. Wells and Mr. Dana followed on the same side. Mr. O'Conor closed for the defense. "On the close of Mr. Wells' speech the Court adjourned until the next day, which was occupied by Mr. Dana and Mr. O'Conor." We have seen that the Chief Justice "was not surprised at the ground taken by the defendant;" and that he affirmed "the course of the argument was anticipated as the point urged was the common principle of constructive repeal." He had sug gested the quashing of the indictment. No doubt but Judge Chase felt humiliated, as the head and representative of the judiciary of the nation, that Davis was ever indicted for treason and was ever arraigned for trial. "The argument having closed on the 4th of December, the Court adjourned until the next day, when it announced what was well understood at the outset would be the case--that the Court could not agree. Although not stated in the order, it is known that the Chief Justice held the point taken by the defense to be good and that the indictment should be quashed while Underwood would have overruled the motion and pro ceeded to trial. The difference was that between a learned and upright lawyer, who conld rise above political prejudice in the assertion of a great principle, and an ignorant partisian who permitted his personal bitterness to guide his judicial findings. "The result of this disagreement of the judges was that the motion to quash failed and thereupon the case was continued 542 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH until the May term, 1869. The fact of the disagreement was certified to the Supreme Court that it might be there decided." This was the end of the celebrated cause. Later in December, 1868, President Johnson published his general amnesty proclama tion, which by common consent was held to cover Mr. Davis's case, and upon the 15th of February, 1869, the following order was entered in the Circuit Court: "United States "Monday, February 15, 1869. Vs. Upon Indictment for Treason. "Thomas Turner, William Smith, Wade Hampton, Benjamin Hugher, Henry A. Wise, Samuel Cooper, G. W. C. Lee, W. H. E. Lee, Charles Mallory, William Mahone, O. F. Baxter, Robert E. Lee, George W. Alexander, James Longstreet, William E. Taylor, Fitzhugh Lee, Robert H. Booker, John DeBree, M. D. Corse, Eppa Hunton, Rodger A. Pryor, D. H. Bridgford, Jubal A. Early, R. S. Ewell, William S. Winder, George Booker, Cornelius Boyles, William H. Payne, R. S. Andrews, C. J. Faulk ner, R. H. Dulaney, W. N. McVeigh, H. B. Taylor, James A. Seldon, W. R. Richards, J. C. Breckinridge, and Jefferson Davis." What chivalrous Southerner would not rejoice if his name was enrolled with this illustrious company of great patriots! They had been denounced as rebels, and charged with treason by the United States Government. Now the same Government has acquitted them of rebellion and treason, and has thus charged themselves with rebellion and treason. The thirty-four illustrious names given in the indictment represented the South and her glorious record in advocacy of the Constitution. Their vindica tion is the vindication of the entire South. The vindication of the South is the accusation of the North. Both could not have been right. Now that the South has been declared in the right by the Government's own Court, by the same high authority the North is declared to have been in the wrong. ("Two Cases"). "The District Attorney, by leave of the Court, said that he will not prosecute further on behalf of the United States against the above named parties upon separate indictments for treason. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 543 It is, therefore, ordered by the Court that the prosecutions afore said be dismissed." "Strange to say an order was entered upon the first of Feb ruary reading 'that in as much as the indictments had been dis missed, he and his bondsmen were forever released.' "The motion, on appeal in the Supreme Court, of course, was never called, and is now filed among the archives." Thus ended this great historical case. If Davis and his illus trious patriots with all the brave defenders of the "Ix>st Cause" had been guilty of treason, the proof would have been forth coming ; and Davis and all the principal leaders would have been hung; and justly so. But the proof was not forthcoming. CHAPTER XXXIX. THE TREATMENT OP PRISONERS. On this subject the South has been charged with most atro cious cruelty. This false accusation has been so completely refuted by Benjamin H. Hill, of Georgia, that we give his speech in full (omitting interruptions) as a complete refutation of the charges. On the 10th day of January, 1876, James G. Blaine in the House of Representatives, a prospective candidate for the presi dency of the United States, delivered a well-prepared address in the House in which he charged that "Mr. Davis was fully, deliberately guilty and wantonly cognizant of, and responsible for the organized crime and murder of Andersonville." He also said, "I now assert deliberately before God, as my Judge, know ing the full measure and import of my words, that the cruelties of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the screws and tortures of the Spanish Inquisi tion did not approach in cruelty the atrocity of Andersonville." One Has said, "No speech ever delivered in Congress created a profounder impression than this one. It i s logic on fire with truth and patriotism, literally consuming falsehood and sectional hatred. If Mr. Hill had never again opened his mouth in Congress, this speech would have made him famous and for ever embalmed him in the grateful hearts of his countrymen. Its conclusion furnishes as fine declamation as can be found in the English language and is a favorite selection for college dec lamation." The speech- follows: "Mr. Speaker, the House will bear witness we have not sought this discussion. Nothing could have been farther from the de sires and purposes of those who with me represent immediately the section of country which on yesterday was put upon trial, than to reopen the discussion of the events of our unhappy past. We had well hoped that the country had suffered long enough from feuds, from strife, from inflamed passions, and we came here, sir, with a patriotic purpose to remember nothing but the RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 545 country and the whole country, and, turning our backs upon all the horrors of the past, to look with all earnestness to find glories for the future. "The gentleman, who is the acknowledged leader of the Re publican party on this floor, who is the aspiring leader of the Republican party of this country, representing most manifestly the wishes of many of his associates--not all--has willed other wise. They seem determined that the wounds which were healing shall be reopened, that the passions which were hushing shall be re-inflamed. Sir, I wish this House to understand that we do not reciprocate either the purpose or the manifest desire of the gentleman on the other side, and while we feel it our imperative duty to vindicate the truth of history as regards the section which we represent, feeling that it is a portion of this common country, we do not intend to say anything calculated to aid the gentlemen in their work of crimination and recrimination, and of keeping up the war by politicians after brave men have said war shall end. The gentleman from Maine on yesterday presented to the country two questions which he manifestly intends to be the fundamental principles of the Republican party, or at least of those who follow him in that party. The first is what he is pleased to term the magnanimity and grace of the Republican party; and the second is the brutality of those whom he is pleased to term 'the rebels.' Upon the first question I do not propose to weary the House today. If, with the history of the past fifteen years, fresh in the memory of the people, the country is prepared to talk about the grace and magnanimity of the Republican party, argument would be wasted. If master enslaved, intelligence dis franchised, society disorganized, industry paralized, States sub verted. Legislatures dispersed by the bayonet, the people can ac cord 'to that party the verdict of grace and magnanimity--may God save the future of our country from grace and magnanimity. "I advance directly to that portion of the gentleman's argu ment which relates to the question before the House. The gen tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) has presented to this House, and he asks it to be adopted, a bill on the subject of amnesty, which is precisely the same as the bill passed in this House by the gentleman's own party, as I understand it, at the last session of Congress. The gentleman from Maine has moved 546 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH a reconsideration of the vote by which it was rejected, avowing1 his purpose to be to offer an amendment. The main purpose of that amendment is to except from the operation of the bill one of the citizens of this country, Mr. Jefferson Davis. "He alleges two distinct reasons why he asks the House to make that exception. I will state those reasons in the gentleman's own language. First, he says 'Mr. Davis was the author-- knowingly, deliberately, guiltily, and willfully--of the gigantic murder and crime at Andersonville.' That is a grave indictment. He then characterizes, in his second position, what he calls the horrors of Andersonville. And he says of them: " 'And I here before God, measuring my words, knowing their full extent and import, declare that neither the deeds of the Duke of Alva, nor the massacre of St. Bartholomew, nor the thumb screws and engines of torture of the Spanish Inquisition, begin to compare in atrocity with the hideous crimes of Andersonville.' "Sir. he stands before this country with his very fame in peril if he, having made such charges, shall not sustain them. Now I take up the propositions of the gentleman in their order. I hope no gentleman imagines that T am here to pass any eulogy upon Mr. Davis. The record upon which his fame must rest has been made up, and he and his friends have transmitted that record to the only judge who will give him an impartial judg ment--an honest unimpassioned posterity. In the meantime no eulogy from me can help him, no censure from the gentleman can damage him, and no act or resolution of this House can affect him. But the charge is that he is a murderer, and a delib erate, willful, guilty, scheming murderer of 'thousands of our fellow citizens.' Why, sir, knowing the character of the honor able gentleman from Maine, his high reputation, when I heard the charge fall from his lips I thought surely the gentleman had made a recent discovery, and I listened for the evidence to justify that charge. He produced it: and what is it? To my utter amazement, as the gentleman from" Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelley) has well stated, it is nothing on earth but a report of a committee of this Congress, made when passions were at their height, and it was known to the gentleman and to the whole country eight years ago. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 547 "Now, I say first in relation to that testimony, that it is ex clusively ex parte. It was taken when the gentleman, who is now put upon trial by it before the country, was imprisoned and in chains, without a hearing and without an opportunity to be heard. It was taken by enemies. It was taken in the midst of fury and rage. If there is anything in Anglo-Saxon law which ought to be considered sacred, it is the high privilege of an Englishman not to be condemned until he shall be confronted with the witnesses against him. But that is not all. The testi mony produced by the gentleman is not only ex parte, not only exclusively the production of enemies, or at least taken by them and in the midst of passion, but the testimony is mutilated.. Why, sir, one of the main witnesses is Dr. Joseph Jones, a very excellent gentleman, who was called upon to give his testimony in what is called the Wirz trial, and which is produced before the House and attention called to it by the gentleman. The object of the gentleman was to prove that Mr. Davis knew of these atrocities at Andersonville, and he calls the attention of the House to the report of this committee and thanks God that it has been taken in time to be put where it can neither be con tradicted nor gainsaid as a perpetual guide to posterity to find out the'authors of these crimes. "One of the most striking and remarkable pieces of evidence is this whole report made by Dr. Jones, a surgeon of fine char acter, and sent to Andersonville by the Confederate authorities to investigate the condition of that prison. That gentleman made his report, and it is brought into this House. What is it? The first point is as to the knowledge of this report going to any of the authorities at Richmond. Here is what Dr. Jones says: " 'I have just completed the report, which I placed in the hands of the Judge Advocate under orders from the government, when the Confederacy went to pieces. That report never was delivered to the Surgeon-General, and I was unaware that any one knew of its existence until I received orders from the United States Government to bring it to this Court in testimony.' "Now, he was ordered by the United States Government, the first time this report ever saw the light, to bring it and deliver it to the judge-advocate on the trial of Wirz. In accordance 548 RICHARDSONS DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH with that order he did bring it and deliver it to the judgeadvocate general. And when the report itself, or that which purported to be the right report, was presented to him while he was a witness, he discovered that it was mutilated, and he asked permission to state that fad. Hear what he says on that subject : " I beg leave to make a statement to the Court. That portion of my report which has been read is only a small part of the report. The real report contains the excesses, which were given by the officers present at Andersonville, which I thought it right to embody with my report. It also contains documents for warded to Richmond by Dr. Stevenson and others in charge of the hospitals. Those documents contain important facts as to the labors of the medical department and their efforts to better the condition of things. "All that part of the report is suppressed, and with that sup pression this magnificent receptacle of truth is filed away in the document room for the information of posterity. "The Committee ask him: "Q. Are your conclusions correctly stated in this extract? "A. Part of my conclusions are stated not the whole. A portion of my conclusions and also my recommendations, are not stated. "Q. Well, touching the subject of exchange? "A. Yes, sir; the general difficulties environing the prisons and their officers. "Q. What became of your original report? "A. This is my original report. "That is he had there the extract as far as it went. "Q. Did you make this extract yourself? The committee seem to think that he was the man that simply made the extract and brought it before the committee. "A. I did not. My original report is in the hands of the ju3ge-advocate. I delivered it into his hands immediately upon my arrival in Washington. "And this Committee of Congress to which the gentleman re fers, absolutely tells us that this mutilated report was the one RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 549 introduced in evidence against this man Wirz, and it is the one incorporated in this book. "Now, I want to call attention to another extract from that original report--a part not included in this book. There are a great many such omissions; 1 have not been able to get all of them. "Dr. Jones in his report is giving an account of the causes of the sickness and mortality at Andersonville; and he says, among other things: " 'Surrounded by these depressing agents, the postponement of the exchange of prisoners and the constantly receding hopes of deliverance through the action of their own Government, de pressed their already desponding spirits and destroyed those mental and moral energies so necessary for a successful struggle against disease and its agents. Homesickness and disappoint ment, mental depression and distress, attending the daily longing for an apparently hopeless release, are felt to be as potent agencies in the destruction of these prisoners as the physical causes of actual disease.' "Ah! why that homesickness, that longing and the distress consequent upon it, and its effect in carrying those poor, brave, unfortunate heroes to death ? I will tell this House before I am done. "Now, sir, there is another fact. Wirz was put on trial, but really Mr. Davis was the man intended to be tried through him. Over one hundred and sixty witnesses were introduced before the military commission. The trial lasted three months. The whole country was under military despotism; citizens labored under duress; and quite a large number of Confederates were seeking to make favor with the powers of the Government. Yet, sir, during those three months, with all the witnesses they could bring to Washington, not one single man ever mentioned the name of Davis in connection with a single atrocity at Anderson ville or elsewhere. The gentleman from Maine, with all his re search into all the histories of the Duke of Alva and the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the Spanish Inquisition, has not been able to frighten up such a witness yet. "Now, sir, there is a witness on this subject Wirz was con- 550 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH demned, found guilty, sentenced to be executed; and .1 have now before me the written statement of his counsel, a Northern man, a Union man. He gave this statement to the country and it has never been contradicted. ''Hear what this gentleman says: " 'On the night before the execution of the prisoner, Wirz, a telegram was sent to the Northern press from this city stating that Wirz had made important disclosures to Gen. L. C. Baker, the well known detective, implicating Jefferson Davis, and that the confession would probably be given to the public. On the same evening some parties came to the confessor of Wirz, Rev. Father Boyle, and also to me as his counsel, one of them inform ing me that a high cabinet officer wished to assure Wirz that if we would implicate Jefferson Davis with atrocities committed at Andersonville his sentence would be commuted. The messen ger requested me to inform Wirz of this. In the presence of Father Boyle I told Wirz the next morning what had happened.' "Hear the reply: " 'Captain Wirz simply and quietly replied: 'Mr. Schade. you know T have always told you that I do not know anything about Jefferson Davis. He had no connection with me as to what was done at Andersonville. I would not become a traitor against him or anybody else even to save my life.'" "Sir, what Wirz, within two hours of his execution would not do, would not say for his life, the gentleman from Maine says to the country to keep himself and party in power. Christianity is a falsehood, humanity is a lie, civilization is a cheat, or the man who would not make a false charge for his life was never guilty of wilful murder. ' "He who makes a charge must produce his witness. They must be informed witnesses. They must be creditable witnesses. The gentleman from Maine makes his charge, but produces no witnesses. He says that men sent by Jefferson Davis to Ander sonville \vere his officers, executing his orders, commissioned by him. and he therefore charges Mr. Davis with these atrocities by inference. It was only when the gentleman reached that portion of his argument that I thought I began to discover the RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 551 real purpose of his movement. I will not charge him with it, but a suggestion came immediately to my mind. "What is the proposition which the gentleman proposes to establish. It is that those high in authority are to be charged with the sins and the treacheries of their agents, commissioned by them and acting under their orders. Is the gentleman art fully--I beg pardon--under the cover of prejudice and passion against Jefferson Davis, seeking to assault President Grant? If Jefferson Davis sent Gen. Winder to Andersonville, why Presi dent Grant sent McDonald and Joyce to St. Louis. Nay, more, sir; is not the very secretary of the White House, the private confidential secretary, indicted today for complicity in these frauds? Does the gentleman want to establish a rule of con struction by which he can authorize the country to arraign Gen. Grant for complicity in the whisky frauds? "Sir, is Gen. Grant responsible for the Credit Mobilier? Was he a stockholder in the Sanborn contracts? Was he co-partner in the frauds upon this district? With all his witnesses the gentleman never can find a single man who was confidential sec retary to Mr. Davis and charged with complicity in crime, that Mr. Davis ever indorsed any man as fit for office who was even gravely charged with any complicity in fraud. Yet the gentle man's President, as I understand it, absolutely sent to the Senate of the United States for confirmation to a high office the very man who stood charged before the country with the grossest peculation and frauds in this district, and, that, too, after these charges were made and while the investigation was pending. "Sir, I am neither the author nor the disciple of such political logic. And I will not, nor would I for any consideration, assume the proposition before this House to furnish an enemy which would implicate the President of the United States in the grossest frauds. Yet, if the gentleman's proposition be true, Gen. Grant, instead of being entitled to a third Presidential term, is entitled to twenty terms in twenty penitentiaries. But, sir, he is not guilty. The argument is false. It is a libel upon the American rule of law and English precedent. You cannot find its precedent anywhere in any civilized country. I acquit Gen. Grant of any 552 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH complicity in the whisky frauds, and the facts acquit Mr. Davis of any complicity in any atrocity anywhere. "Now, Mr. Speaker, I pass from the construction of that question to the real facts about Andersonville. First, I want to call the attention of the House to the law of the Confederate Government on the subject of the treatment of prisoners. I read from the act of the Confederate Congress on that subject; it was very simple and direct: " 'The rations furnished prisoners of war shall be the same in quantity and quality as those furnished to enlisted men in the army of the Confederacy.' "That was the law; that was the law Mr. Davis approved; and that was the law Mr. Davis, so far as his agency was con cerned, executed. The gentleman in his speech has gone so far as to say that Mr. Davis purposely sent Gen. Winder to Andersonville to or ganize a den of horrors and kill Federal soldiers. I do not quote exactly his language, but I know it is 'to organize a den of horrors," but I am sure I cannot use any language more bitter than the gentleman used himself. Therefore the next thing I shall read is the order given for the purpose of locating this prison at Andersonville, or wherever it should be properly lo cated. The official order for the location of the stockade enjoins that it should be in a 'healthy locality, with plenty of pure water, with a running stream, and, if possible, with shade trees, and the immediate neighborhood of grist and saw mills/ That does not look like the organization of a den of horrors to commit murder. That was the official order. That was not all. Those prisoners at Andersonville were not only allowed the rations measured out to Confederate soldiers both in quantity and qual ity in every respect, but they were allowed also to buy as much outside as they desired; a privilege, I am reliably informed, which was not extended to many of the Confederate prisoners. I do not know how this is. "I do not wish to charge it if the facts were otherwise. But in the book which the gentleman from Maine himself produces we find this testimony, given by a Union soldier. He says: " 'We never had any difficulty in getting vegetables; we used RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 553 to buy almost anything that we wanted of the sergeant who called the roll mornings and night. His name was Smith, I think; he was Capt Wirz's chief sergeant We were divided into messes, eight in each mess; my mess used to buy from two to four bushels of sweet potatoes a week, at the rate of $lo.OO per bushel Confederate money.' They got $20.00 of Confederate money for $1.00 of green backs in those days. " 'Turnips were bought at $20.00 per bushel. We had to buy our own soap for washing our person and own clothing; we bought meat and eggs and biscuit. There seemed to be an abundance of these things; they were in the market constantly. That sergeant used to come down with a wagon load of potatoes at a time, bringing twenty or twenty-five bushels at a load sometimes.' "Now, sir, Mr. Davis himself alluded to that privilege which was allowed to Federal soldiers. The Confederate authorities not only allowed them to purchase supplies as they pleased outside in addition to the rations allowed them by law--the same rations allowed to Confederate soldiers--but he says: " 'By an indulgence perhaps unprecedented, we have even al lowed prisoners in our hands to be supplied by their friends at ] home with comforts not enjoyed by the men who captured them | in battle.' "The Confederate Government gave Federal prisoners the same rations the Confederate soldiers in the field received. Federal prisoners had permission to buy whatever else they pleased, and the Confederates gave their friends at home permission to furnish them the means to do so. And yet, Mr. Speaker, it is true that, in spite of all these advantages enjoyed by these prisoners, there were horrors, and great horrors at Andersonville. What were the causes of these horrors? The first was the want of medicine. That is given as a cause by Dr. Jones in his testimony; that is given by this very Father Hamilton, from whom the gentleman of Maine read. In the very testimony, which the gentleman read, Father Hamilton says: "'I conversed with Dr. White with regard to the condition of the men, and he told me it was not in his power to do anything 554 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH for them; that he had no medicine and could not get any and that he was doing everything in his power to help them.' "Now, how was it that medicines and other essential supplies could not be obtained? Unfortunately they were not in the Confederacy. The Federal Government made medicine contra band of war: and I am not aware that any other nation on earth ever did such a thing before--not even the Duke of Alva, sir. The Confederate Government, unable to introduce medicine according to its right under the laws of Nations, undertook to run the blockade, and whenever possible the Federal Navy cap tured its ships and took the medicine. Then when no other re source was left, when it was suspected the women of the North-- the earth's angels, God bless them--would carry quinine and other medicines of that sort, so much needed by the Federal prisoners in the South, Federal officers were charged to capture the women and examine their petticoats, to keep them from car rying medicine to Confederate soldiers and Federal prisoners, and they were imprisoned. Surely, sir, the Confederate Govern ment and the Southern people are not to blame for a poverty in medicine, food and rainment, enforced by the stringent war measures of the Federal Government--a poverty which had its intended effect of immeasurable distress to the Confederate armies, although it incidentally inflicted unavoidable distress upon Federal prisoners in the South. "The Federal Government made clothing contrabrand of war. It sent down its arnres and they burned up the factories of the South wherever they could find them, for the express purpose of preventing the Confederates from furnishing clothing to their soldiers, and the Federal Government, of course, shared this deprivation of comfortable clothing. It was the war policy of the Federal Government to make supplies scarce. Dr. Jones in his testimony and Father Hamilton in his testimony, which I will not stop to read to the House, explained why clothing was scarce to Federal prisoners. "Now, then, sir, whatever horrors existed at Andersonville, not one of them can be attributed to a single order of the Con federate Government, but every horror of Andersonville grew out of the necessities of the occasion, which necessities were cast RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 555 upon the Confederacy by the war policy of the other side. The gentleman from Maine said that no Confederate prisoner was ever maltreated in the North. And when my friend answered from his seat, 'A thousand witnesses to the contrary in Georgia alone,' the gentleman from Maine joined issue, but as usual produced no testimony in support of the issue. I think the gen tleman from Maine is to be excused. For ten years, unfortunate ly, he .-TV! his party have been reviling the people who were not allowed to come here to meet the reviling. . Now, sir, we are face to face, and when you make a charge you must bring your proof. The time has passed when the country can accept the impudence of assertion for the force of argument, or reck lessness of statement for the truth of history. "Now, sir, I do not wish to unfold the chapter on the other side. I am an American. I honor my country, and my whole country, and it could be no pleasure to me to bring forward proof that any portion of my countrymen have been guilty of wilful murder or cruel charge. These horrors are inseparable, many of them and most of them, from a state of war. I hold in my hand a letter, written by one who was a surgeon at the prison at Elmira, and he says: " 'The winter of 1864 was an unusually severe and rigid one. and the prisoners arriving from the Southern States during the season were merely old men and lads, clothed in attire suitable only to the genial climate of the South. I need not state to you that this alone was ample cause for an unusual mortality among them. The surroundings were of the following nature: namely, narrow, confined limits, but a few acres in extent--' "Andersonville. sir, embraced twenty-seven acres--and through which slowly flowed a turbid stream of water which, horrible to relate, was the only source of supply, for an extended period, that the prisoners could possibly use for the purpose of ablution and to slack their thirst from day to day; the tents and other shelter allotted to the Camp at Elmira were insuffi cient and crowded to the utmost extent: hence small-pox and other skin diseases raged through the camp. "Here I may note that owing to a general order from the Government to vaccinate the prisoners, my opportunities were 536 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH ample to observe the effects of spurious and diseased matter, and there is no doubt in my mind but that syphilis was ingrafted in many instances; ugly and horrible ulcers and eruptions of a characteristic nature were, alas! too frequent and obvious to be mistaken; small-pox cases were crowded in such manner that it was a matter of impossibility for the surgeon to treat his pa tients individually; they actually laid so adjacent that the sim ple movement of one would cause his neighbor to cry out in agony of pain. The confluent and malignant, type prevailed to such an extent and of such a nature that the body would fre quently be found one continuous scab. " 'The diet and other allowances by the Government for the use of the prisoners were ample, yet the poor unfortunates were allowed to starve.' "Now, sir, the Confederate regulations authorizes ample pro visions for Federal prisoners, the same that were made for Con federate soldiers, and you charge that Mr. Dav:s is responsible 'for not having those allowances honestly applied. The United States made provisions for Confederate prisoners, so far as rations were concerned, for feeding those in Federal hands; and yet what says the surgeon ? They were allowed to starve. "But 'why?' is a querry which I will allow your readers to infer and draw conclusions therefrom. Out of the number of prisoners, as before mentioned, over three thousand of them now lay buried in the cemetery located near the camp for that purpose--a mortality equal if not greater than any prison in the South. At Andersonville, as I am well informed by brother officers who endured confinement there, as well as by the rec ords at Washington, the mortality was twelve thousand out of, say, forty thousand prisoners. Hence it is readily to be seen that the range of mortality was no less at Elmira than at Ander sonville. "Now, will the gentleman believe testimony from the dead? The Bible says 'The tree is known by its fruit.' And after all what is the test of the suffering of these prisoners North and South? The test is the result. Now, I call the attention of the gentleman to this fact, that the report of Mr. Stanton, the Secretary of war--you will believe him, will you not? on the BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 557 19th of July 1866--send to the Library and get it--exhibits the fact that the Federal prisoners in Confederate hands during the war, only 22,576 died, while of the Confederate prisoners in Federal hands 26,436 died. And Surgeon-General Barnes reports in an official report, I suppose you will believe him-- that in round numbers the Confederate prisoners in Federal hands amounted to 220,000 while, the Federal prisoners in Confederate hands amounted to 270,000. Out of the 270,000 in Confederate hands 22,000 died, while of the 220,000 Con federates in; Federal hands over 26,000 died. The ratio is this: More than twelve per cent, of the Confederates in Federal hands died, and less than nine per cent, of the Federals in Con federate hands died. What is the logic of these facts accord ing to the gentleman from Maine? I scorn to charge murder upon the officials of Northern prisons, as the gentleman has done upon Confederate prison officials. I labor to demonstrate that such miseries are inevitable in prison life, no matter how humane the regulations. I would scorn, too, to use a newspaper article, unless it were signed by one, who gave his own name and whose statements, if not true, can be disproved, and I would believe such a one in preference to any politician over there who was thirty-six miles away from Elmira. That gentleman, so prompt to contradict a surgeon, might perhaps have smelled the small-pox, but he could not see it, and I venture to say that if he knew the small-pox was there he would have taken very good care to keep thirty-six miles away. He is a wonder ful witness. He is not even equal to the mutilated evidence brought in yesterday. But. sir, it appears irom the official rec ord that the Confederates came from Elmira, from Fort Dela ware, and from Rock Island and other places, with their fingers frozen off, and with teeth dropped out. "But the great question is behind. Every American, North and South, must lament that our country has ever impeached its civilization by such an exhibition of horrors on any side, and I speak of these things with no degree of pleasure. God knows if I could hide them from the view of the world I would gladly do it. But the great question is, at last, who was respon sible for this state of things? And that is really the only ma- 558 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH terial question with which statesmen now should deal. Sir, it is well known that, when the war opened, at first the authorities of the United States determined that they would not exchange prisoners. The first prisoners captured by the Federal forces were the crew of the Savannah, and they were put in chains and sentenced to be executed. Jefferson Davis hearing of this communicated through the lines, and the Confederates having meanwhile also captured prisoners, he threatened retaliation in case those men suffered, and the sentences against the crew of th Savannah were not executed. Subsequently our friends from this way--I believe my friend before me from New York (Mr. Cox") was one--insisted that there should be a cartel for the exchange of prisoners. In 1363 that cartel was agreed upon. In substance and briefly it was agreed that there should be an exchange of man for man, and officer for officer, and whichever held an excess at the time of exchanges should parole the ex cess. This worked very well until 1863. I am going over the facts very briefly. "It was then this cartel was interrupted; the Federal author ities refused to continue the exchanges. Now commenced a history which the world ought to know, and which I hope the House will grant me the privilege of stating, and I shall do it from official records. This, I say frankly to the gentlemen on the other side, was in truth one of the severest blows stricken at the Confederacy, this refusal to exchange prisoners in 18fi3 and continued through 1864. The Confederates made every ef fort to renew the cartel. Among other things, on the 3d of July, 1863, the Vice-President of the Confederacy, the gentle man to whom the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Blaine) alluded the other day in so complimentary terms, Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, was absolutely commissioned by President Davis to cross the lines and come to Washington to consult with the Fed eral authorities, with a broad commission to agree upon any cartel satisfactory to the other side for exchange of prisoners. Mr. Davis said to him, Your mission is simply one of humanity and has no political aspect. Mr. Stephens undertook that work. What was the result? I wish to be careful, and I will state this exactly, correctly. Here is his letter. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 559 " 'Confederate States, Steamer Torpedo in James River, July 4, 1863. " 'Sir: As military commissioner, I am the bearer of a com mission in writing from Jefferson Davis, Commander-in-Chief of the land and naval forces of the Confederate States, to Abra ham Lincoln, Commander-in-Chief of the land and naval forces of the United States. Hon. Robt. Ould, Confederate States agent of exchange, accompanies me as secretary, for the pur pose of delivering the communication in person and conferring upon the subject to which it relates. I desire to proceed to Washington in the Steamer Torpedo, commanded by Lieut. Hun ter Davidson, of the Confederate States navy, no person being on board but Hon. Mr. Ould, myself and the boat's officers and crew. " 'Yours most respectfully, ': 'Alexander H. Stephens.' " '"To S. H. Lee, Admiral"' "This was directed to S. H Lee, Admiral. Here is the an swer: '"Acting Rear Admiral S. H. Lee, Hampton Roads: The request of Alexander H. Stephens is inadmissible. '' 'Gideon Wells, Secretary of War. "You will acknowledge that Mr. Stephen's humane mission failed. The Confederate authorities gave to that mission as much dignity and character as possible. They supposd that of all men in the South Mr. Stephens most nearly had your confi dence. They selected him to be the bearer of messages for the sake of humanity in behalf of the brave Federal soldiers who were unfortunate prisoners of war. The Federal Government would not even receive him; the Federal authorities would not hear him. "What was the next effort? After Mr. Stephens's mission failed, the Commissioner for the exchange of prisoners. Col. Ould,_having exhausted all his efforts to get the cartel renewed, on the 24th of January 1864, wrote [he following letter to MajorGeneral E. A. Hitchcock, agent of exchange on the Federal side: 560 RICHAEDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH " 'Confederate States of America, War Dept. "'Richmond, Va., Jan. 24, 1864. " 'Sir: In view of the difficulties attending the exchange and release of prisoners, I propose that all such on either side shall be attended by a proper number of their own surgeons, who, under rules to be established, shall be permitted to take charge of their health and comfort. I also propose that these surgeons shall act as commissaries, with power to receive and distribute such contributions of money, food, clothing, and medicines, as shall be forwarded for the relief of prisoners. I further pro pose that all these surgeons shall be selected by their own Gov ernment, and that they shall have full liberty, at any and all times, through the agents of exchange, to make reports not only of their own acts, but of any matters relating to the welfare of the prisoners. " 'Respectfully your obedient servant, " 'Robt. Quid, Agent of Exchanges. '"Major-General E. A. Hitchcock, "How, sir, did the Federal Government treat that offer? It broke the cartel for the exchange of prisoners; it refused to entertain a proposition, even when Mr. Stephens headed the commission, to renew it; and then, sir, when the Confederates proposed that their own surgeons should accompany the pris oners of the respective armies, the federal authorities did not answer the letter. No reply was ever received. "Then again in August 186-i, the Confederates made two more propositions. I will state that the cartel otf exchange was broken by the Federal authorities for certain alleged reasons. Well, in August 1864, prisoners accumulated on both sides to such an extent and the Federal Government having refused every proposition from the Confederate authorities to provide for the comfort and treatment of these prisoners, the Confed erates next proposed, in a letter from Col. Ould, dated the 10th of August 1864, waving every objection the Federal Govern ment had made, to agree to any and all terms and renew the exchange of prisoners, man for man and officer for officer, as the Federal Government should prescribe. Yet, sir, the Federal Government rejected that proposition. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 561 "Then, again, in that same month, August, 1864, the Confed erate authorities did this: Finding that the Federal Govern ment would not exchange prisoners at all; that it would not let surgeons go into the Confederacy; finding that it would not let medicines be sent into the Confederacy; meanwhile the ravagesof war continuing and depleting the scant supplies of the South,, which was already unable to feed adequately its own" defenders, and much less able to properly feed and clothe the thousandsof prisoners in Confederate prisons, what did the Confederates propose? They proposed to send the Federal sick and wounded1 prisoners without equivalent. Now, sir, I want the House and the country to understand this: that, in August, 1864, the Con federate Government officially proposed to Federal authorities that if they would send steamships of transportation in any form to Savannah, they should have their sick and wounded prisoners without equivalent. That proposition, communicated to the Federal authorities in August, 1864, was not answered until December 1864. In December 1864, the Federal Govern ment sent ships to Savannah. Now, the records will show that the chief suffering at Andersonville was between August and December. The Confederate authorities sought to avert it byasking the Federal Government to come and take its prisoners without equivalent, without return, and it refused to do that until four or five months had elapsed. That is not the only appeal which was made to the Federal Government. I now call the attention of the House to another appeal. It was from the Federal prisoners themselves. They knew as well as the Southern people did the mission of Mr. Stephens. They knew the offer of January 24th for Surgeons, for medicine and clothing, for comforts and food, and for pro visions of every kind. They knew that the Confederate author ities had offered to let these be sent to them by their own Government. They knew that these had been rejected. They knew of the offer of August 10th, 1864. They knew of the other offer to return sick and wounded without equivalent. They knew all these had been rejected. Therefore they held a meeting and passed the following resolutions; and I call the attention of the gentlemen on the other side to these resolutions. 562 RICHARDSONS DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH I ask if they will not believe the surgeons of their hospitals; if they will not believe Mr. Stantons report; if they will not believe Surgeon-General Barnes report, I beg from them to know if they will not believe the earnest heart-rending appeal of those starving, suffering heroes. Here are the resolutions passed by the Federal prisoners the 28th of September, 1864. "Resolved, while allowing the Confederate authorities all due praise for the attention paid to our prisoners, numbers of our men are daily consigned to early graves, in the prime of manhood, far from home and kindred, and this is not caused intentionally by the Confederate Government, but by the force of circumstances. "Brave men are always honest, and true soldiers never slan der. They say the horrors they suffered were not intnetional ; that the Confederate Government had done all it could to avert them. Sir, I believe the testimony of gallant men as being of the highest character, coming from the sufferers themeslves. "They" further resolved: "The prisoner is obliged to go without shelter, and in a great portion of cases without medicine. " Resolved, That whereas in the fortunes of war it was our lot to become prisoners, we have suffered patiently and are still willing to suffer, if by so doing we can benefit the country; but we would most respectfully beg to say that we are not willing to suffer to further the ends of any party or clique to the detriment of our own honor, our families, and our country. And we would beg this affair be explained to us, that we may continue to hold the Government in respect which is necessary to make a good citizen and soldier. "Was this touching appeal heeded? Let any gentleman who belonged to the clique or party that the resolutions condemn, answer for his party. "Now, sir, it was in reference to that state of thigns, ex actly, that Dr. Jones reported, as I have already read to the House, in his report which was mutilated before that commit tee in_ Congress and in the trial of Wirz it was in consequence of that very state of things that Dr. Jones said that depression of mind and despondency and home-sickness of these poor pris- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 563 oners carried more to their graves than did physical causes of disease. That was not wonderful at all. "But, Mr. Speaker, why were all these appeals resisted? Why did the Federal authorities refuse to allow their own sur geons to go to their own soldiers and carry them medicine and clothing and comfort and treatment. Why? Why did they refuse to exchange man for man and officer for officer? Why did they refuse to stand up *o their own solemn engagements, made in 1863, for the exchange of prisoners? Who is at fault? There must be a reason for this. That is the next point to which I wish to call the attention of the House. Sir, listen to the reading. The New York Tribune, referring to this mat ter in 1864, said--I suppose you will believe the Tribune in 1864, if you do not believe it now. " 'In August the rebels offered to exchange man for man. Gen. Grant then telegraphed the following important order: 'It is hard on our men held in Southern prisons not to exchange them, but it is humanity to those left in the ranks to fight our battles. Every man released on parole or otherwise becomes an active soldier against us at once, either directly or indirectly. If we commend a system of exchange which liberates all pris oners taken, we will have to fight on till the whole South is ex terminated. If we hold those caught, they amount to no more than dead men. At this particular time to release all rebel pris oners North would insure Sherman's defeat, and would com promise our safety here.' "Here" is Gen. Grant's testimony before the Committee on the exchange of prisoners, February 11, 1865. You believe him, do you not? "Q. 'It has been said that we refused to exchange prisoners because we found ours starved, diseased and unserviceable when we received them, and did not like to exchange sound men for such men?1 "That was the question propounded to him. His answer was: "There never has been any such reason as that. That has been a reason for making exchanges. I will confess that if our men who are prisoners in the South were really well taken care of, suffering nothing except a little privation of liberty, then, 564 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH in a military point of view, it would not be good policy for us to exchange, because every man they get back is forced right into the army at once, while that is not the case with our prisoners when we receive them; in fact, the half of our returned prison ers will never go into the army again and none of them will until after they have had a furlough of thirty or sixty days. Still, the fact of their suffering as they do is a reason for mak ing this exchange as rapidly as possible.' "Q. 'And never has been a reason for making the exchange ?' "A. 'It never has. Exchanges having been suspended by reason of disagreement on the part of agents of exchange on both sides before I came into command of the armies of the United States and it then being near the opening of the spring campaign, I did not deem it advisable or just to the men who had to fight our battles to re-enforce the enemy with thirty or forty thousand disciplined troops at that time. An immediate resumption of exchange would have had that effect without giv ing us corresponding benefits. The suffering said to exist among our prisoners was a powerful argument against the course pur sued and so I felt it.' "There is no disputing the fact, that with the knowledge that his prisoners were suffering in the South, he insisted that the exchange should net be renewed, because it would increase the military power of the enemy. Now, that may have been a good military reason. I do not quote it for the purpose of reflecting upon Gen. Grant in the slightest. I am giving the facts of history. I insist that the Confederacy shall not be held respon sible for the results of the war policy of the Federal Govern ment, especially when the record proves that the confederate authorities made every possible effort to avert these results. Nor do I allege inhumanity on the part of Gen. Grant's interpreta tion of those facts. Let the world judge. "Now, sir, we have other authorities upon that subject. Here is a letter by Junius Henri Browne. I do not know the gentle man. He signs his name to the letter. He writes like a schol ar. He is a Northern gentleman, and I am not aware that his statement has ever been contradicted. Now, what does he sav? RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 565 566 RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH prisoners deliberately; I have proven that they refused to re open the cartel when it was proposed by Mr. Stephens, as a commissioner, solely on the ground of humanity; I have proven that they made medicine contraband of war and thereby left the South to the dreadful necessity of treating their own prisoners with such medicines as could be improvised in the Confederacy; I have proven that they refused to allow surgeons of their own appointment, of their own army, to accompany their prisoners in the South, with full license and liberty to carry food, medi cine, and raiment, and every comfort that the prisoners might need; I have proven that when the Federal Government made the pretext for interrupting the cartel for the exchange of pris oners, the Confederates yielded every point and proposed to ex change prisoners on the terms of the Federal Government, and that the latter refused it; I have proven that the Confederates then proposed to return the Federal sick and wounded without equivalent in August 1864, and never got a reply until December, 1864; I have proven that high Federal officers have assigned as a reason why they would not exchange prisoners that it would be humanity to the prisoners but cruelty to the soldiers in the field, and therefore it was a part of the Federal military policy to let Federal prisoners suffer rather than that the Confederacy should have an increase of military force; and that the Federal Government refused it, when it would have received more pris oners than it returned to the Confederates. "Now what is the answer to all this? Against whom does the charge lie, if there are to be accusations of any, for the horrors of Andersonville ?" Mr. Brigjht--"What was th& percentage of death in the prison ?" Mr. Hill--"I have already given it I have proved also, that with all the horrors at Andersonville the gentleman of Maine has so ostentatiously paraded, and for an obvious partisan pur pose of exciting upon the floor of the House a bitter sectional discussion, from which his party, and perhaps himself, may be the beneficiary, greater sufferings occurred in the prisons where Confederate soldiers were confined, and that the percentage of death was three per cent, greater among Confedrate troops RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 587 in Federal hands than among Federal soldiers held by the Con federates. And I need not state the contrast between the needy Confederacy and the abundance of Federal supplies and re sources. "And, sir, when the gentleman rises again to give breath to that effusion of unmitigated genius without fact to sustain it, in which he says, "And I here before God, measuring my words, knowing their full import, declare that neither the deeds of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries, nor the massacre of St. Bartholomew, nor the thumb-screws and engines of torture of the Spanish inquisi tion, begin to compare in atrocity with the hideous crime of Andersonville,' let him add in that mortality at Andersonville and other Confederate prisons falls short by more than three per cent, the mortality in Federal prisons. "Sir, if any man will reflect a moment he will see that there was reason why the Confederate Government should desire ex change of prisoners. It was scarce of food, pinched for cloth ing, closed up with a blockade of its ports; it needed troops; its ranks were thinning. "Now, .Mr. Speaker, it is proper that I should read one or two sentences from the man who has been arraigned as the vilest murderer in history. After the battles around Richmond in which McClellan was defeated some ten thousand prisoners fell into the hands of the Confederacy. Victor}' had perched upon its standard and the rejoicing, naturally following the victory, was heard in the ranks of the Confederate army. Mr. Davis went out to make a gratulatory speech. Now. gentlemen of the House, gentlemen of the other side, if you are willing to do justice, let me simply call your attention to the words of this man that fell from his lips in the hour of victory. Speak ing to the soldiers he said: "You are fighting for all that is dearest to man, and though opposed to a foe who disregards many of the usages of civilized war, your humanity to the wounded and prisoners was a fit and crowning glory to your valor. "Above the victory, above every other consideration, even that victory which they believed insured protection to their homes and 568 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH families, he tells them that at last their crowning glory was their humanity to the wounded and prisoners who had fallen into their hands. "The gentleman from Maine yesterday introduced the Rich mond Examiner as a witness in his behalf. Now it is a rule of law that a man can not impeach his own witness. It is true the Examiner hated Mr. Davis with a cordial hatred. The gentleman could not have introduced the testimony of perhaps a bitterer foe to Mr. Davis. Why did it hate him? Here are its reasons: 'The chivalry and humanity of Mr. Davis will inevitably ruin the Confederacy.' That is your witness, and the witness is worthy of your cause. You introduced the witness to prove Mr. Davis guilty of inhumanity, and he tells you that the humanity of Mr. Davis will ruin the Confederacy. That is not all. In the same paper it says: 'The enemy have gone from one unmanly cruelty to another.' Recollect this is your witness. The enemy have gone from one unmanly cruelty to another, encouraged by their impunity, till they are now and have for sometime been inflicting on the people of this country the worst horrors of barbarous and uncivilized war.' Yet, in spite of all this the Examiner alleged that, 'Mr. Davis, in his dealings with the enemy, was as gentle as a sucking dove.'" Mr. Garfield.--"What volume was that?" Mr. Hill.--"The same volume, page 531, and is taken from the Richmond Examiner--the paper the gentleman quoted from yesterday. And that is the truth. Those of us who were there at the time know it to be the fact. One of the persistent charges brought by that paper and some others against Mr. Davis was his humanity. Over and over again Mr. Davis has been heard to say, and I use his very language, when appealed to to retaliate for the horrors inflicted upon our prisoners, 'The inhumanity of the enemy to our prisoners can be no justifica tion for a disregard by us for the rules of civilized war and of Christianity.' Therefore he persisted in it, and this paper cried out agsiuot him that it would ruin the Confederacy. "I am sure I owe this House an apology for having detained It so long; I shall detain it but a few moments longer. After all, what should men do who really desire the restoration of RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 569 peace and to prevent the recurrence of the horrors of war? How ought they to look at this question? Sir, war is always hor rible; war always brings hardships; it brings death, it brings sorrow, it brings ruin, it brings devastation. And he is un worthy to be called a statesman, looking to the pacification of this country, who will parade the horrors inseparable from war for the purpose of keeping up the strife that produced the war. "I do not doubt that I am the bearer of an unwelcome mes sage to the gentleman from Maine and his party. He says that there are Confederates in this body, and that they are going to combine with a few from the North for the purpose of con trolling this Government. If one were to listen to the gentle man on the other side he would be in doubt whether they re joiced more when the South left the Union, or regretted most when the South came back to the Union that their fathers helped to form, and to which they will forever hereafter contribute as much of patriotic ardor, or noble devotion, and of willing sac rifice as the constituents of the gentleman from Maine. Oh, Mr. Speaker, why can not gentlemen on the orhe: side rise to the height of this great argument of patriotism? Is the bosom of the country always to be torn with this miserable sectional debate whenever a presidential election is pendincr? To that great debate of half a century before secession there were left no adjourned questions. The victory of the North was abso lute, and God knows the submission of the South was complete. But, sir we have recovered from this humiliation of defeat and we come here among you and we ask you to give us the greet ings accorded to brothers by brothers. We propose to join you in every patriotic aspiration that looks to the benefit, the ad vancement, and the honor of every part of onr common country. Let us, gentlemen of all partiees, in this centennial year indeed have a jubilee of freedom. We divide with you the glories of the Revolution and of the succeeding years of our national life before that unhappy division, that four years' night of gloom and dispair--and so we shall divide with you the glories of all the future. "Sir, my message is this: There are no Confederates in this 570 RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH House; there are no Confederates anywhere; there are no Con federate schemes, ambitions, hopes, desires, or purposes here. But the South is here, and here she intends to remain. Go on and pass your qualifying acts, trample upon the Constitution you have sworn to support; abnegate the pledges of your fathers; incite raids upon our people, and multiply your infidelities until they shall be like the stars of heaven or the sands of the sea shore, without number; but know this, for all your iniquities the South will never again seek a remedy in the madness of another secession. We are here; we are in the house of our fathers, our brothers are our companions, and we are at home to stay, thank God! "We come to gratify no revenges, to retaliate no wrongs, to resent no past insults, to re-open no strife. We come with a patriotic purpose to do whatever in our political power shall lie to restore an honest, economical and constitutional adminis tration of the Government. We come charging upon the Union no wrongs to us. The Union never wronged us. The Union has been an unmixed blessing to every section, to every state, to every man of every color in America. We charge our wrongs upon that 'higher law' fanaticism, that never kept a pledge nor obeyed a law. The South did seek to leave the association of those who she believed would not keep fidelity to their cove nants; the South sought to go to herself; but so far from hav ing lost our fidelity for the Constitution which our fathers made, when we sought to go. we hugged that Constitution to our bos oms and carried it with us. "Brave men of the North, followers of Webster and Fill- more, of Clay and Cass and Douglass--you who fought for the Union for the sake of the Union; you who ceased to fight when the battle ended and the sword was sheathed--we have no quar rel with you, whether Republicans or Democrats. We felt your heavy arm in the carnage of battle; but above the roar of the cannon we heard your voice of kindness, calling, "Brothers, come back!" And we bear witness to you this day that that voice of kindness did more to thin the Confederate ranks and weaken the Confederate arm than did all the artillery exploded 1 in the struggle. We are here to co-operate with you; to do BICHAEDSONS DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 571 whatever we can in spite of all our sorrows, to rebuild the Un ion; to restore peace; to be a blessing to the country and to make the American Union what our fathers intended it to be-- the glory of America and a blessing to humanity. "But to you, gentlemen, who seek still to continue strife, and who, not satisfied with the sufferings already endured, the blood already shed, the waste already committed, insist that we shall be treated as criminals and oppressed as victims, only because we defended our convictions--to you we make no concessions. To you who followed up the war after the brave soldiers that fought it had made peace and gone to their homes--to you we have no concessions to offer. Martyrs owe no apologies to tyrants. And while we are ready to make every sacrifice for the Union, even secession, however, defeated and humbled, will confess no sins to fanaticism, however bigoted and exacting. "Yet, while we make to you no concession, we come even to you in no spirit of revenge. We would multiply blessings in common for you and for yours. We have but one ambition, and that is to add our political power to the patriotic Union men of the North in order to compel fanaticism to obey the law and live in the Union according to the Constitution. We do not propose to compel you by oaths, for you who breed strife only to get office and power will not keep oaths. "Sir, we did the Union one great wrong. The Union never wronged the South; but we of the South did the Union one great wrong; and we come, as far as we can, to repair it. We wronged the Union grievously when we left it to be seized and rent and torn by the men who had denounced it as "a cove nant with hell and a league with the devil." We ask you, gen tlemen, of the Republican party, to rise above all your animosi ties. Forget your own sins. Let us unite to repair the evils that distract and oppress the country. Let us turn our backs upon the past, and let it be said in the future that he shall be the greatest patriot, who shall do most to repair the worngs of the past and promote the glories of the future." CHAPTER XL. SHERMANS MARCH THROUGH GEORGIA, SOUTH CAROLINA AND NORTH CAROLINA. Northern historians approvingly call it "The Great March." Yet, it was a march of wide-spread desolation, and of unparal leled barbarity, including rape and murder. Historians of the North boast that "it could be traced by its wide-spreading col umns of smoke that rose wherever the army went." Its terri ble barbarity was characterized in all its track, 30 miles wide and hundreds of miles in length, by burning dwellings and the wail of exposure and starvation. It was a march, every step of which was in violation of the code of civilized warfare. The twentieth century has pronounced it, in no uncertain terms, to be the one great disgrace of the civilization of the nineteenth century. The crimes of that march put to shame the cruelties of the uncivilized tribes of the isles of the sea. With this introduction we shall now give the reader a glimpse, and only a glimpse, of that "Great March" We can not ven ture here into full details of the barbarous excesses that marked all the wide and long miles of that savage march. On the 2d day of September 1864, the Mayor of Atlanta sur rendered that City to Gen. Sherman. Just three days later, September 5th, Gen. Sherman ordered all the civilians, male and female, to leave the city, giving them only five days in which to obey his order. Mayor Calhoun and other city offi cials appealed in vain to have this order revoked, urging, in compassionate terms, "the woes, the horrors and sufferings, not to be described by words," that would result. To them Sher man replied: "I give full credit to your statements of the distress that will be occasioned by it, and yet shall not revoke my order, because my orders are not designed to meet the humanities of the case." Alva in the 16th century, in the Low Countries, sent thou sands of non-combatants to the gallows. Sherman, in the mid- RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 573 die of the enlightened 19th Century, ruthlessly expelled in five days' time, thousands of defenceless women and children, to gether with the lame, the maimed, and those laboring under the infirmities of old age, to endure woes, and horrors and sufferings untold. Alva, in his overwhelming pride, erected a statue of himself in the citadel of Antwerp, with nobles, and peoples at his feet, and with a bombastic inscription of his own praise. Sherman in overwhelming savage cruelty, in the very heart of the great American Republic, erected a statue of him self with women and children and decrepit old age suffering and starving at his feet, and the cruel inscription of "My orders are not designed to meet the humanities of the case." On the 16fh day of July 1865, Gen. Sherman's army camped on the banks of the Congaree River just opposite Columbia, the Capitol of South Carolina. The next day the Mayor, claiming that protection of life and property guaranteed to non-comba tants by the laws of all civilized wars, surrendered the City to Col. Stone, Commanding a brigade of the 15th corps. The guarantee was utterly disregarded. By order of Gen. Sherman Coluriibia was burned to ashes. Gen. Sherman, realiz ing that by this act he had incurred the reproaches of the civ ilized world, deliberately and falsely attributed the enormous crime to Gen. Wade Hampton, saying: "I saw in a Columbia newspaper the printed order of Gen. Wade Hampton, that on the approach of the Yankee army all the cotton should be burn ed, and from what I saw myself, I have no hesitation in say ing that he was the cause of the destruction of your city." These are plain, strong, and deliberate assertions of positive knowledge. Note the words: "/ saw in a Columbia newspaper the printed order of Gen. Wade Hampton" etc. "From what I saw myself I have no hesitation in saying," etc. He could not have used stronger or more positive language. Gen. Hampton's attention having been called to this charge of Gen. Sherman in the published proceedings of Congress, he wrote on the 21st day of April, 1866, to the Hon. Beverly John son, United States Senate, saying in part: "This charge made against me by Gen. Sherman, having been brought before the Senate of the United States, I am naturally 11 1 574 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH most solicitous to vindicate myself before the same tribunal. But my State has no representative in that body. Those who should be her Constitutional representatives are debarred the right of entrance into those halls. There are none who have the right to speak for the South; none to participate in the legislation which governs here; none to impose the taxes she is called upon to pay; and none to vindicate her sons from mis representation, injustice or slander. Under these circumstances I appeal to you, in the confident hope you will use every effort to see that justice is done in this matter. "I deny emphatically, that any cotton was fired by my order. I deny that 'the citizens set fire to the thousands of bales rolled out into the streets.' I deny that any cotton was on fire when the Federal troops entered the city. I most respectfully ask of Congress tu appoint a committee, charged with the duty of ascertaining, and reporting all the facts connected with the de struction of Columbia and thus fixing upon the proper author of that enormous crime the infamy he richly deserves. I am willing to submit the case to any honest tribunal. Before any such T pledge myself to prove that I gave a positive order, by direction of Gen. Beauregard (Gen. Beauregard was at that time in command of the Confederates) that no cotton should be fired; that not one bale was on fire when Gen. Sherman's troops took possession of the city; that he promised protection to the city; and that, in spite of his solemn promise, he burned the city to the ground, deliberately, systematically, and atroci ously. I therefore most earnestly request that Congress may take prompt and efficient measures to investigate this matter ful ly. Not only is this due to themselves, and to the reputation of the United States army, but also to justice and truth. Trust ing that you will pardon me for troubling you, I am, very re spectfully, your obedient servant, "Wade Hampton." This is a manly letter. It bears truth and sincerity upon its face. It calls for "truth and justice." For ten long years Gen. Sherman, by his silence, repeated and re-affirmed these grave charges. Then, after so long a time, from some cause,-- BICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 375 perhaps the pangs of conscience, he made this very humiliating confession, in his published tnemoirss "In my official report of this conflagration, I distinctly charg ed it to Gen. Wade Hampton, and confess I did so pointedly, to shake the faith of his people in him." And this was Gen. Sherman, holding the next highest rank to Gen. Grant in the largest army marshalled in modern times. This was Gen. Sher man, the typical official and agent of those who inaugurated and prosecuted the great war! Sherman confesses he officially lied. His falsehood, undented, was conspicuous for ten years in his official reports. It has been copied into Northern histories; rehearsed in Northern schools, and proclaimed from Northern rostrums. It is today, after five decades lacking only one year, believed and taught by many educators of Northern youth. It is still to be found, uncontradicted, in a vast number of North ern libraries, and is still believed by the masses of the rising generation in that great section of our common country. It is to refute such slanders as this that we write. Is it improper to ask, in this connection, if Sherman was false to truth, as he confesses, in regard to the destruction of Co lumbia, may it not be that he was also wanting in fidelity to truth in other statements of his memoirs? What credence is the historian to give his utterances? To lie to an individual is a grave charge. How infinitely more serious is it to lie offi cially, thus placing the seal of a great government upon false hood; and hence lying to all the millions yet unborn I An official falsehood is caught upon the wings of the wind and swift ly borne over land and sea to all parts of the world. Truth is slow of foot, but sure of her ground and final triumph. As the days unfold the dark deeds of Northern invasion, the South looms higher and brighter in the sky of right and patriotism. That we may be clear as to future statements we here remark that Gen. J. E. Jonnston, on the 23d day of February, 1865, relieved Gen. Beauregard at the request of Gen. Robt. E. Lee, and took command of the troops in North Carolina. Brevet Major George Ward Nichols, Aid-de-Camp to Gen. Sherman, pp. 112-3, in his "The Story of the Great March, from a Diary of a Staff Officer," says: "With untiring zeal 576 RICHARDSONS DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH the soldiers hunted for concealed treasures ..........Whenever the army halted almost every inch of ground in the vicinity of the dwellings was poked by ramrods, pierced with sabers, or upturnd with spades, searching for valuable personal effects, plate, jewelry, and other rich goods............It was comical to see a group of these red-bearded, bare-footed, ragged veterans punching the unoffending earth in an apparently idiotic but certainly most energetic way. If they struck a vein a spade was instantly put into requisition, and the coveted wealth was speedily unearthed. Nothing escaped the observation of these sharp-witted soldiers ..........The fresh earth recently thrown up, a bed of flo\v?rs just set out, the slightest indication of a change in the appearance or position, all attracted the gaze of the military agriculturists. It was all fair spoils of war. and the search made one of the excitements of the March." The last sentence is proof positive, that "searching for val uable personal effects, plate, jewelry, and other rich goods," had the full sanction and vigorous approval of a staff officer of the commanding General. The fact that this searching invariably occurred "whenever the army halted," shows that there was no secret about it: and hence was known and approved by Gen. Sherman himself and his entire staff. This fact accounts for its being "one of the excitements of the march," one not all. Another excitement was burning dwellings, churches, granar ies and other buildings. Still another was that of witnessing the discomfort, the distress, the sufferings, and the wailings of help less women and children. The right of an army to forage, while marching through an enemys country, is universally conceded by civilized nations. But no civilized nation construes the term, forage, to mean the right to rob citizens of their furniture, plate, jewelry, and other rich valuables. The word forage is derived from ferre, mean ing fodder. Hence its primary mcatiiup is fodder. The aw that controls all civilized nations defines it -as "a search for pro visions;" or "the act of feeding abroad," a right limited to the actual necessities of the invading army. It therefore does not include the right of individuals to enrich themselves by forcibly RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 577 appropriating any kind of "rich goods" belonging to the inhab itants of the invaded country. This construction by the invading army was the result of nec essity. Convinced that the South could not be subjugated by civilized warfare, the United States Government had resort to the barbarously cruel method of robbery, the torch, starvation and murder, regardless of the attendant evils that would result, very naturally, from the encouragement this policy would give to a licentious soldiery, such as assaults upon innocent women. It was this same necessity that established the three American bastiles; that refused to exchange prisoners, thus bringing suf ferings and untimely deaths to thousands of these unfortunate soldiers on both sides; and the wide reaching policy of the general Government to spread devastation and ruin wherever its soldiers marched. Hence, this disregard of civilized warfare was not confined to Sherman's command. In the "Memoir of the Last Year of the War" by Lieut. Gen. Early telling of his pursuit of Major Gen. Hunter in his (Hun ter's) retreat from Lynchburg,--begun on the 19th of June, 1864,--down the Shennandoah valley, he thus described the de struction witnessed along the routes: "Houses had been burned, and helpless women and children left without shelter. The country had been stripped of pro visions, and many families left without a morsel to eat. Fur niture and bedding had been cut to pieces, and old men and women and children robbed of all the clothing they had, except that on their backs. Ladies' trunks had been rifled and their dresses torn to pieces in mere wantonness. Even the negro girls had lost their little finery. At Lexington he had burned the Military Institute with all its contents, inclnding its library and scientific apparatus. Washington College has been plun dered, and the statue of Washington stolen. The residence of ex-Governor Letcher at that place had been burned by orders, and but a few minutes given Mrs. Letcher and her family to leave the house. In the country a most excellent Christian gen tleman, a Mr. Creigh, had been hung, because, on a former occa sion he had killed a straggling and marauding Federal soldier, 578 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH while in the act of insulting and outraging the ladies of his family." What conclusion are we to draw from the general facts but this: The policy of destruction, ruin, starvation and murder was no less than that of the Government itself? It was the policy of all'the Northern armies, in whatever section of the country they operated, and under whatever commanders they served. Some of Gen. Sherman's foragers had added to their crime of stealing every species of private property, the greater crime of assaulting women, and a few of them had been summarily dealt with by those whose wives and daughters they had out raged, and whose homes they had made desolate. Gen. Sherman made this fact a cause of complaint and informed Gen. Hampton that In retalition he had ordered a number of "Confed erate prisoners of war put to death." Hampton's prompt re ply was: "For every soldier of mine murdered by you, I shall have executed at once two of yours, giving in all cases prefer ence to any officers who may be in our hands," adding that he had ordered his men "to shoot down all of your men who are caught burning houses." It is believed that this threat of Hamp ton produced a salutary effect. On the 14th day of September 1865, the Rev. Dr. John Bachman, pastor of the Lutheran Church, City of Charleston, S. C., writing from that city, makes the following statement of facts: "When Sherman's army came sweeping through Charleston, leaving a broad track of desolation for hundreds of miles, whose steps were accompanied with fire, and sword, and blood, remind ing us of the tender mercies of the Duke of Alva, I happened to be at Cash's Depot, six miles from Cheraw. The owner was a widow, Mrs. Elerbe, seventy-one years of age. Her son, Col. Cash, was absent. I witnessed the barbarities inflicted on the aged, the widow and the young and delicate females. Officers,, high in command, were engaged tearing from the ladies their watches, their ear and wedding rings, the daguerreotypes of those they loved and cherished. A lady of delicacy and refinement, a personal friend, was compelled to strip before them, that they might find concealed watches and other valuables under her dress. A system of torture was practiced toward the weak, un- RICHARDSON'S- DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 578 armed and defenseless, which as far as I know and believe, was universal throughout the whole course of that invading army. Before they arrived at a plantation, they inquired the names of the most faithful and trustworthy family servants; these were immediately seized, pistols were presented at their heads, with the most terrific curses, they were threatened to be shot if they did not assist them in finding buried treasures. If this did not suc ceed, they were tied up and cruelly beaten. Several poor crea tures died under the affliction. The last resort was that of hanging, and the officers and men of the triumphant army of Gen. Sherman were engaged in erecting gallows and hanging up these faithful and devoted servants. They were strung up till life was nearly extinct, when they were let down, suffered to rest awhile, then threatened and hung up again. It is not sur prising that some should have been left hanging so long that they were taken down dead. Coolly and deliberately these hard ened men proceeded on their way. as if they had perpetrated no crime ("one of the excitements of the March"), and as if the God of heaven would not pursue them with his vengeance, But it was not alone the poor blacks (to whom they professed to come as librators) that were subjected to torture and death. Gentlemen of high character, pure and honorable and gray-head ed, unconnected with the military, were dragged from their fields or beds, and subjected to this process of threats, beating and hanging. Along the whole track of Sherman's army, traces remain of the cruelty and inhumanity of the aged and defense less. Some of those who were hunpf up died under the rope, while their cruel murderers have not only been left unapproached and unhung, but have been hailed as heroes and patriots The list of those martyrs whom the cupidity of the officers and men of Sherman's army sacrificed to their thirst for gold and silver, is large and most revolting. If the editors of this paper will give their consent to publish it, I will give it in full, attested by the names- of the purest and best men and women of our Southern land. "I, who have been a witness to these acts of barbarity that are revolting to every feeling of humanity and mercy, was doom ed to feel in my own person the effects of the avarice, cruelty 580 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH and despotism which characterized the men of that army. I was the only male guardian at the refined and delicate females who had fled there for protection and shelter. I soon ascertained the plan that was adopted in this wholesale system of plunder, insult, blasphemy and brutality. The first that came was headed by officers, from a colonel to a lieutenant, who acted with seem ing politeness, and told me that they only came to secure our firearms, and when these were delivered up nothing in the house should be touched. Out of the house, they said, they were au thorized to press forage for their large army. I told them that along the whole line of the march of Sherman's army, from Co lumbia to Cheraw, it had been ascertained that ladies, had been robbed and personally insulted. I asked for a guard to protect the females. They said that there was no necessity for this. If any did not treat the ladies with proper respect, I might blow their brains out. 'But,' said I, 'You have taken away our arm,s and we are defenseless.' They did not blush much, and made no reply, shortly after this came the second party before the first had left. They demanded the keys to the ladies' drawers, took away such articles as they wanted, then locked the drawers and put the keys into their pockets. In the meantime they gathered up the spoons, knives, forks, towels, table-cloths, etc. As they were carrying them off I appealed to the officers of the first party; they ordered the men to put back the things; the officer of the second party said he 'would see them d--d first;' and without further ado, packed them up, and they glanced at each other and smiled. The elegant carriage and all the vehicles on the premises were seized and filled with bacon and other plunder. The smokehouses were emptied of their contents and carried off. Every head of poultry was seized and flung over their mules, and they presented the hideous picture in some of the scenes in 'Forty Thieves.' Every article of harness they did not wish was cut in pices. "By this time the first and second parties had left, and a third appeared on the field. They demanded the keys of the drawers, and, on being informed they had been carried off, cooly and der liberately proceeded to break open the locks, took what they wanted, and when we uttered words of complaint were cursed. EICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 581 Every horse, mule, carriage, even to the carts, was taken away for hundreds of miles, the last animal that cultivated the wid ow's cornfield, and the vehicles that once bore them to the house of worship, were carried off or broken into pieces and burned. "The first party that came promised to leave ten days' provi sions, the rest they carried off. An hour afterwards, other hordes of marauders from the same army came and demanded the last pound of bacon and the last quart of meal. On Sunday the negroes were dressed in their best suits. They were kicked and knocked down and robbed of all their clothing, and they came to us in their shirt sleeves, having lost (their hats, clothes and shoes. Most of our own clothes had been hid in the woods. The negroes who had assisted in removing them were beaten and threatened with death, and compelled to show them where they were concealed. They cut open the trunks, threw my man uscripts and devotional books into a mud-hole, stole the ladies' jewelry, hair ornaments, etc., tore many garments into tatters, or gave 'the rest to negro women to bribe them into criminal intercourse. These women afterwards returned to us those ar ticles that, after the mutilations, were scarcely worth preserving. The plantation of one hundred and sixty negroes, was some dis tance from the house, and to this place successive parties of fifty at a time resorted for three long days and nights, the husbands and fathers being fired at and compelled to fly to the woods. "Now commenced scenes of licentiousness brutality, and rav ishment that have scarcely had an equal in the ages of heathen barbarity. I conversed with aged men and women, who were witnesses of these infamous acts of Sherman's unbridled sol diery, and several of them, from the cruel treatment they had received, were confined to their beds for weeks afterward...... During this time the fourth party whom I was informed by others, we had the most reason to dread, had made their ap pearance. .They came, as they said, in the name of 'the great General Sherman who was next to God Almighty.' They came to burn and lay in ashes all that was left They had burned bridges and depots, cotton gins, mills, barns and stables. They swore they would make the d----d rebel women pound their corn with rocks, and eat their raw meal without cooking. They 582 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH succeeded in thousands of instances. I walked out at night, and the innumerable fires that were burning as far as the eye could reach, in hundreds of places, illuminated the whole heav ens, and testified to the vindictive barbarity of the foe. I pre sume they had orders not to burn occupied houses, but they strove all in their power to compel families to fly from their houses that they might afterward burn them. The neighborhood was filled with refugees who had been compelled to fly from their plantations on the seaboard. As soon as they had fled, the torch was applied, and for hundreds of miles, these elegant mansions, once the ornament and pride of our inland country, were burned to the ground. "All manner of expedients were adopted to make the resi dents leave their homes for the second time. I heard them say ing 'this is too large a house to be left standing, we must con trive to l>urn it.' Canisters of powder were placed all around the house, and an expedient resorted to that promised almost certain success. The house was to be burned down by firing the out-buildings. These were so near each other that firing of the one would lead to the destruction of all. I had already succeeded in having a few bales of cotton rolled out of the building, and hoped, if they had to be burned, the rest would also be rolled out, which could have been done in ten minutes by several hundred men who were looking on, gloating over the prospect of another elegant mansion in South Carolina being left in ashes. The torch was applied, and soon the large store house was on fire. This communicated to several other build ings in the vicinity, which, one by one, were burned to the ground. At length the fire reached the smokehouse, where they had already carried off the bacon of two hundred and fifty hogs. This was burned, and the fire was now rapidly approach ing the kitchen which was so near the dwelling house that, should the former burn, the destruction of the large and noble edifice would be inevitable. "A Captain of the United States service, a native of England, whose name I would like to mention here, if I did not fear to bring down upon him the censure of the abolitionists as a friend to the rebels, mounted the roof, and the wet blankets we sent RICHARDSONS DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 583 up to him prevented the now smoking roof from bursting into flames. I called for help to assist us in bringing water from a deep well; a young lieutenant stepped up, condemned the in famous conduct of the burners, and called on his company for aid; a portion of them came cheerfully to our assistance; the wind seemed almost by a miracle to subside; the house was saved, and the trembling females thanked God for their de liverance. All this time about one hundred mounted men were looking on, refusing to raise a hand to help us; laughing at the idea that no efforts of ours could save the house from the flames. "I had assisted in laying the foundtaion and dedicating the Lutheran Church at Columbia, and there, near fts walls, had recently been laid the remains of one who was dearer to me than life itself. To set that brick church on fire from below was impossible. The building stood by itself on a square but little built up. One of Sherman's burners was sent up to the roof. He was seen applying the torch to the cupola. The church was burned to the ground, and the grave of my loved one desecrated. The story circulated, that the citizens had set their own city on fire, is utterly untrue, and only reflects dishonor on those who vilely perpetrated it. Gen. Sherman had his army under con trol. The burning was by his orders, and ceased when he gave command. "I was now doomed to experience in person the effects of avarice and barbarous cruelty. The robbers had been in formed in the neighborhood that the family which I was pro tecting had buried one hundred thousand dollars in gold and silver. They first demanded my watch, which I had effectual ly secured from their grasp. They then asked me where the money had been hid. I told them I knew nothing about it, and did not believe there was a thousand dollars worth in all, and what there was had been carried off by the owner, Col. Cash. AH this was literally true. They then concluded to try an experiment on me, which had proved so successful in hun dreds of other cases. Cooly and deliberately they prepared to inflict torture on a defenseless gray-headed old man. They carried me behind a stable, and once again demanded where tne money was buried, or 'I should be sent to hell in five minutes. 584 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH They cocked their pistols and held them to my head. I told them to fire away. One of them a square-built broad-faced, large-mouthed, clumsey lieutenant, who had the face of a demon, and who did not utter five words without an awful blasphemy, now kicked me in the stomach until I fell breathless and pros trate. As soon as I was able, I rose again. He once more asked me where the silver was. I answered as before, 'I do not know.' With his elephant foot he kicked me on my back till I fell again. Once more I arose, and he put the same ques tion to me. I was nearly breathless but answered as before. Thus was I either kicked or knocked down seven or eight times. I then told him it was perfectly useless for him to continue his threats or his blows. He might shoot me if he chose. I was ready and would not budge an inch, but requested him not to bruise and batter an unarmed, defenseless old man. 'Now,' said he, 'I'll try a new plan. How would you like to have both your arms cut off?" He did not wait for an answer, but with his heavy sheathed sword, struck me on my left arm, near the shoulder. I heard it crack; it hung powerless at my side, and I supposed it was broken. He then repeated the blow on the other arm. The pain was most excruciating, and it was , several days before I could carve my food, or take my arm out of a sling, and it was black and blue for weeks. (I refer to Dr. Kollock of Cheraw). At that moment the ladies, headed by my daughter, who had only then beeif 1e aware of the brutality practiced upon me, rushed from the house, and came flying to my rescue. 'You dare not murder my father,' said my child; he has been a minister in the same church for fifty years, and God has always protected him, and will protect him.' 'Do you believe in a God, Miss ?' said one of the brutal wretches; T don't believe in a God, a heaven, nor a hell.' 'Carry me,' said I, 'to your General.' I did not intend to go to Gen. Sherman who was at Cheraw, from whom, I was informed, no re dress could be obtained, but to a General in the neighborhood, said to "be a religious man. Our horses and carriages had all been taken away, and I was too much bruised to be able to walk. The other young officers came crowding around very officially telling me that they would represent the case to the Genearl, RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 585 and that they would have him shot by 10 o'clock the next morn ing. I saw the winks and glances that were exchanged between them. Every one gave a different name to the officers. The brute remained unpunished, as I saw him on the following morn ing, as insolent and profane as he had been the preceding day.... "A few weeks after this I was sent for to perform a paro chial duty at Mars Bluff, some twenty miles distant. Arriving at Florence in the vicinity, I was met by a crowd of young men connected with the militia. They were excited to the highest pitch of rage, and thirsted for revenge. They believed that among the prisoners that had just arrived on the railroad car, on their way to Sumter, were the very men who committed such horrible outrages in the neighborhood. Many of their houses had been laid in ashes. They had been robbed of every means of support. Their horses had been seized; their cattle and their hogs bayoneted; their mothers and sisters had been insulted, and robbed of their watches, ear and wedding rings. Some of their parents had been murdered in cold blood. The aged pastor, to whose voice they had so often listened, had been kicked and knocked down by repeated blows, and his hoary head had been dragged about in the sand. They entreated me to examine the prisoners and see whether I could identify the men that had inflicted such barbarities on me. I told them I would do so, provided they would remain where they were and not follow me. The prisoner w me at a distance, held down their guilty heads, and trembled like aspen leaves. All cruel men are cow ards. One of my arms was still in the sling. With the other I raised some of their hats. They all begged for mercy. I said to them, 'the other day you were tigers. You are sheep now.' But a hideous object soon arrested my attention. There was that brutal enemy--the vulgar, swaggering lieutenant, who had ridden up to the steps of the house, insulted the ladies, and beaten me most unmercifully. I approached him slowly, and, in a whisper asked him: 'Do you know me, sir?5--'the old man whose pockets you first searched, to see whether he might not have a penknife to defend himself, and then kicked and knocked him down with your fist and heavy scabbard?1 He presented the picture of an arrant coward, and in a trembling voice im- 586 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH plored me to have mercy: 'Don't let me be shot; have pity! Old man, beg for me! I won't do it again. For God's sake save me! O God, help me!' 'Did you not tell my daughter there was no God? Why call on him now?* Oh, I have chang ed my mind; I believe in a God now.' I turned and saw the impatient, flushed, and indignant crowd approaching. 'What are they going to do with me ?' said he. 'Do you hear that sound,--click, click?" 'Yes,' said he, they are cocking their pistols. 'True' said I, 'and if I raise a finger you will have a dozen bullets through your brain.' 'Then I will go to hell; don't let them kill me. O Lord; have mercy!' 'Speak low,r said I, 'and don't open your lips.' The men advanced. Al ready one had pulled me by the coat. 'Show us the men.' I gave no clew by which the guilty could be identified1. I walked slowly through the cars, entered the waiting carriage and drove off." In these atrocities we have the blackest record, all things considered, in history. It was savagery on the largest scale, and under the direction of the most competent organized skilt. It was divided into four separate and well instructed bands of greed, rape, licentiousness and murder, each succeeding band being more atrocious than the one just preceding it. The three bands in advance left nothing but empty dwellings and empty out buildings. The fourth and last band applied the torch, and used the gallows, and other kindred cruelties in search of valua bles. It was "The wildest savagery, the vilest stroke That ever wall-eyed wrath, or staring rage Presented to the tears of helpless victims." A CONTRAST. There was another army that invaded an enemy's territory. It, too, was on American soil, and in the sixties. It was com manded by the peerless Lee. Sherman's orders were not design ed to meet the humanities of the case;" but Lee's were in full sympathy with all that is tender and true. Sherman's march was characterized by smouldering ruins and beastly brutalities; RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 587 Lee's by its humanities. "The excitements" of Shennan's "march" werd theft, rapine, inordinate desires, and murder. Those of Lee's army were deeds of kindness, and their assur ing words: "We make no war upon non-combatants." The record of Sherman's army is that of uncivilized barbarity; that of Lee's is written on the loftiest peaks of the civilization of the nineteenth century. Thus the two records stand. The one is as black as night. The other is as bright as the full orbed sun. We are told by Northern writers if Davis had been more like Lincoln the Con federacy would not have failed. Davis was incapable of some things. And to his honor, he could not endorse uncivilized methods. The Confederacy went down, it is true, but like the cloudless sun in the west All the Confederacy stood for during its short but glorious life, is as illuminating and enduring as the bright orb of that cloudless sun; and just as sure as that sun will rise again to refresh and warm the earth, just so sure will the Confederate cause survive its short night of apparent defeat, and live again to refresh and warm the patriot hearts of all coming generations, and restore to this great American Republic the true principles/ of Constitutional liberty. CHAPTER XLI. THE CONFEDERATE NAVY. From an address delivered before Camp 171 U. C. V. of Washington, D. C., by Perry M. DeLeon, on Navies in War, and the 'Confederate Navy in the War Between the States, we make the following extract: Semmes on the Alabama and Sumter destroyed ...... 87 ships He would have destroyed the Kearsage had the shell planted in her rudder port exploded. Waddell on the Shendoah destroyed ............. 36 ships Maffitt, Barney and Morris on the Florida, destroyed. 37 ships Wood on the Tallahassee destroyed .............. 29 ships Read on the Clarence and Tacony destroyed ........ 23 ships Maury on the Georgia destroyed ................. 8 ships Wilkinson on the Chickamauga destroyed ........... 4 ships Other vessels destroyed ......................... 35 ships Total number destroyed ......................259 Merchantmen destroyed valued at $18,000,000. Three things make my gorge rise: First, Calling the war between the States a rebellion; second, calling our gallant naval officers pirates, and our cruisers privateers; and third, accusing the officers who resigned from the old service, of violating their oaths, and being guilty of ingratitude to a government which educated them. That man has read history in vain who ap plies the term rebellion to a contest between sovereign States. The charge of piracy is too utterly contemptible and mendacious to need reply. If Semmes was a pirate, so was Farragut. If the Alabama.was a privateer so was the Hartford, and every Federal ship that captured a vessel flying a Confederate- flag engaged in commerce. The charge of piracy and ingratitude is likewise utterly mendacious and contemptible. During and since the war, Semmes was honored by the nations wherever he went. England, the greatest of sea-powers, especially doing him homage, the British naval officers and others presenting him with a sword after the Alabama met her glorious death. RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 589 As to ingratitude the charge is simply absurd; the expenses of their education were paid by both the North and South, the South contributing far more than her share. These charges were made during the war by unprincipled politicians to bring our cause into disrepute. They have been repeated since the war by mendacious historians, or rather romancers who man ufacture history to suit their fanaticism. As to privateers, it is thus legally defined: "A privateer is an armed vessel be longing to private parties, hence the name. It operates under a letter of marque issued by the Government of which her own ers are subjects or citizens, to protect from being treated as a pirate." A man-of-war is a vessel belonging to either a de jure or a de facto government and cruises under a regular commission, her officers being also commissioned by the same power. The Southern Confederacy was not only a de facto government but was recognized as a belligerent So much for balderdash cur rent during the war and the ravings of fanatical sectionalists of today. The war found the South without ships, without seamen, with no commercial marine, and, at first with one navy yard, later on with none, with no powder works, no ordinance foundries, with but few machine shops, few ship carpenters, and not a single shop in which the simplest marine engine could be con structed. Our energetic and efficient secretary of the Navy, Hon. Stephen R. Mallory of Florida, had indeed a herculean task; and the wonder is that he accomplished so much with means so scant. It is but truth to state that it was as difficult for him to procure iron for his ironclads as for the United States Secretary Wells to build a gunboat. The story of our gallant little navy is a sad but glorious one. Despite the facts I have mentioned the genius of the naval officers of the South electrified the world. John M. Brooke, Williamson and Porter, revolutionized naval warfare in the con struction of the famous Virginia," commonly called the Merrimac, as Ericson likewise did with the Monitor. Their famous contests made wooden warships a thing of the past. Brooke first taught how to rifle smooth-bore guns, and =lso taught gun- 590 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH makers that great guns could be made almost non-explosive by shrinking bands over their breeches, and their effectiveness in creased to an extent to excite the wonder and admiration of all seamen. Hunter Davidson first made torpedoes effective for attack and defense. Gallant sailor that he was, he was as great in action as in the laboratory. I challenge the world to produce a more able, more gallant, more unselfish band of patriots than the peerless officers who, born in the South, and bred under the Stars and Stripes, were to win deathless fame under the Stars and Bars. Loving the old flag with a devotion sailors only know, glorying in its tradi tions, proud of its achievements, and their own part therein, caring naught and oft knowing naught of political issues, leav ing their homes as boys, and far removed by their profession from early friends and associations and the burning issues of the day, their devotion to their native South was sublime. But alas! this sentiment 'was far from general. Leaving, as I have said, their States as boys, dissociated from the "ties that bind," very many Southern naval officers had ceased to regard their native States as sovereign, which they were, and believed their allegiance due to the flag that floated over them. That brilliant and original thinker, Governor Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, was wiser than many thought when he advised the South to .fight in the Union and under the Stars and Stripes. The sentiment of the Union was a tremendous factor, and sent tens of thousands into the Federal ranks. Of Southern born line officers, including commanders and lieutenants, 126 resign ed, 127 remained in the Federal Navy-; of the junior officers, masters and midshipmen eleven resigned, twenty-five did not; of the acting midshipmen, boys at the Naval Academy, 106 re signed, twenty-two did not; of the staff officers, paymaster, and surgeons 38 resigned, 56 did not; taking the total, 299 followed the Stars and Bars, 288 the Stars and Stripes; eliminating the midshipmen, boys as I have said, 193 resigned, 260 did not. In a word, excluding the "middies" fresh from home and subject to the order of their parents, a considerable majority of the Naval officers elected to remain in the United States Navy. Of the Marine Corps 14 resigned, 14 remained. * * * * RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 591 We can not question the motives of any of these men. I for one with the flag floating over me for five years while Consul General in South America, can well understand the devotion felt by naval officers for the Flag, and I do not doubt for a moment that they were true to their convictions, and did what they deemed their duty; yet it is painful to reflect that the most vital wounds the South received were inflicted by her own sons-- Farragut, Drayton, S. P. Lee, Winslow, Goldsboro, et al. This painful fact recalls these beautiful lines of Byron: "So the struck eagle stretched upon the plain, No more thro* rolling clouds to soar again, Viewed his own feathers in the fatal dart And winged shaft that quivered in his heart, Keen was His pang, but keener far to feel, He nursed the pinion which impelled the steel, While the same plumage that had warmed his nest Drank the last life-drop from his bleeding breast." The naval officers who resigned gave up their means of live lihood, sacrificed their careers, and severed the ties of a life time for a cause, the success of which some of them like Com modore Ingraham believed to be at least doubtful. Patriotism and self-sacrifice could no farther go. With the officers of the army it was quite different. They were on the spot, conversant with the political questions of the day, in the thick of the sectional storm which raged over the country, swayed by the passions of the hour, and imbued with the sentiments of their friends and kindred. Hence when the die was cast nearly all of them espoused the cause of the South, even the great Lee, who declined to become the generalissimo of the Union Forces, because he belived his allegiance was due to his beloved Virginia, and his duty required him to cling to her, and obey her commands. Sordid indeed is the soul which questions his sincerity or asperses his memory. Sad was the fate of the older Confederate States Naval offi cers ; bred on the deep, unfamiliar with affairs, knowing naught hut their profession, separated thereby from the world, its flue- 592 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH tuations and its concerns, the end found them broken in for tune, without a profession, bowed down with despair, utterly unfitted to fight the battle of life, and in the Southern cataclysm their countrymen too poor to aid them, or reward their services. A number of officers succumbed to despair and died in pov erty; others were glad to receive any crumb that fell to their lot. ***** Who then were they ? Tattnall had achieved an international reputation, as had Ingraham, Hollins and Maury. The first at Periho, declaring that blood was thicker than water, had saved an English warship from destruction and earned the plaudits of Britain. Ingraham at Smyrna had cleared his ship for ac tion and demanded from Austria the release of the Hungarian patriot, Kostza, under threat of opening fire on the Hussar, a vessel somewhat superior to his own, on which the prisoner was held,--the threat was effective--Austria gave up the cap tive, and Congress voted Ingraham a medal. Hollins at Georgetown had given the snuff-colored Dagos a needed les son. Last and greatest of all was Matthew F. Maury, the first of naval scientists, who did more for the marine than any man who had ever lived. His works, Physical Geography of the Sea, Gulf Stream, Ocean Lanes, are his monument, more en during than brass. He it was who first proposed an Atlantic cable, which was laid in the line he had mapped out. Twelve nations conferred orders of knighthood upon him; Cambridge and the great Universities of Europe had honored him. When he resigned, both before and after the war, the greatest gov ernments of Europe besought him to accept high position, but like Lee he clung to his beloved Virginia, and ended his life as a Professor at the Virginia Military Institute. Thus Vir ginia has given to the world two of the greatest of men, Maury and Lee, as in earlier days a Washington, a Jefferson, a Henry, a Marshall, a Mason, and many more. Eulogy has exhausted itself in characterizing Lee. His name is honored by the North, enshrined in the hearts of the South, and lauded by the whole civilized world. INDEX Abolition Press, 390, 461-2, 465 . Absolutism, 100, 307, 439, 444 450, 458, 460, 458 Adams, Charles Francis, 71-5, 237-8, 246, 250-6, 200-3, 267-8, 278-9, 178-9. 2S3, 200-1, 360-5, 419, 423, 363, 365. 450 Adams, John Qolncy, 76, 220, 402-5, 434, 443, 448-9, 459, 434 Adamses, the, 320 Abrasion, 505-518 Age of Reason, 470 Aggressions, 93, 166-7, 177, ISO, 190, 434, 443-9, 450-2. 456 Albany Argus, 296 Alabama, 358 Alfleri, 482, 480, 475 Allegiance, 525 Altoona, 485 Alva, 567. 573, 578 Ambassadors, Confederate, 168-9 American Statesmen, 377. 427 American bastlles, 445, 450, 458. 462 Anderson, Major Robert, 341-3, 348, 350 Andersonville 644, 566, 565, 547, 545, 549-52, 555 Anklets, 504, 506 Annapolis Convention, 54 Antletam, 424 Anti-Constitntlonal Party, 51. 136-7, 149. 195, 113-14, 127. 132, 136, 195, 436, 4456, 450-7, 190-1 Anti-Slavery Societies, North find South 41 Appeal, 181 Argus, The. 439 Aristotle, 473 Arrest of Davls. 4S8 Assassination, 490 513, 514 Atlas, The, 439 Bacbman, Rev. Dr. John, 578 Ball, 528 Baker, Edward H-, 470 Baker, Gen. L. C.. 550 Baldwin. 120 Baltimore, 370, 367, 374, 178 Banks, Gen., 370, 421 Barnes, Surgeon Gen., 562 Barney, 588 Basis of War, 450 Bastlles, American, 102, 375-6, 394, 427, 445-50, 483, 577 Bastlle, French 374-6 Bates, Gen., 345-6, 378, 388-9 Beach, 541 Beauregard, Gen., 335, 342-8., 351-2, 574 Bed of Davls, 516 Beginning of the Revolution, 27 Bell, Everett, 167 Bibb. Judge. 207, 213, 224 Bible and Slavery, 33 Blngbam, Judge J. K., 302 Blrney, Jas. C., 116 Blackest of Records, 576 Blaine, Jas. G,, 544, 554. 550, 558, 566- Blaine, Governor Austin, 303 Blake, 479, 482 Bland, Richard, 18 Blalr, 349 Blunt, William, 118 Boone, Daniel, 463 Border States. 456, 416-17, 420-4 4,1], 457, 360, 487, 28, 4SO Brady, 526-7 Breckenridge, Rev. R. J., 492 Bright, 556 Brooke, John M., 589 Brown, John 177, 461-S Brown, Major, 36S-9 Browning, 478 Brutality, 5S1 Bryan, 474, 591 Buchanan, Pres., 390 Burke, Edmond, 509 Burnside, Gen., 417 Burton, Gen., 531-2 Bureau of Military Justice, 465 BXisb, Sarah, 465 Butler, Gen., 569, 570, 565 Caution, 520 Chancellorsville, 534 Chandler, DIs. Atty., 527, 531 Charleston Convention, 178 Chase, Judee. 249, 345-6. 378, 3SS, 197- 9, 521-4: 327-9. 536-9. 540-1 Chateaubriand, 474, 479, 4P2 Chatierton. 478, 4S2 Cheraw. 578- 9 Chew, 351-2 Chicago Convention, 178 Chicago Minister, 4S3 Chicago PJaf-orm. J77-8. 1S2. 1S5-6. 42j, 437-9, 446-7, 452. 516, 529, 454-5 Cbickamauga, The, 588 Clusolm vs. Georgia, 247 Christ, 534 Christian. Judge John L., 241 Church at Columbia. 3RJ Centralism, 62, 107-8, 1ST Civilized Warfare. 525 Clarence, The, 588 Clark, Horace F., 533 Clay, Clement C., 495-6, 498, 500, 493, 519 Clay, Henry. 213-14, 223-21. 570 Cleary, W. C., 490 Cleveland, Grover, 409 Clifford, Judge, 243 Coercion, 437, 440, 446-7 Cold Harbor, 534 Colgate, Isaac, 467 Colonies, 33, 34 Comment by Thorpe, 179 Commissoiners, Peace, 318-20, 326, 336, 340, 346, 348. 485, 510 Committee of Investigation. 493 Committee of the States, 285 Committee of Thirteen. 164 Common Law, 177, 285 Community Independence, 93 Compact, 60. 70-3. 87, 90-7 106, 260. 275 322, 161, 176, 322, 161, 176, 229, 230, 231, 53, 20S. 237 Company of Hanover. 24 Compensation for Slaves, 199 594 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH Compromise, 48, 145, 164, 176, 323 Confederacy, 63-5, 92-3, 107, 131, 320, 329, 493, 501, 488, 564, 566, 589 Confederate Constitution, 326 Confederate Navy, 411, 588 Confederate Prisoners, 555 Confederalon, 53, 176 Confederation Act, 404-8 Congress, the V. S. Assembled, 53, 10% 306, 333, 464 Connecticut, 72, 92, 95 Conover, Sanford, 475, 494-5 Conservatism, 395 Conspirators, 163-9, 169. 183, 393, 493, 495, 009 Constitution, U. S., 161-9, 177, 182, 185- 6, 412-4, 429, 463-9, 516, 521-2, 525-7, 538, 542 Contradictions, 441 Conventions of So. States, 1S3 Cooper Institute Speech, 113-9, 120-3, 162, 319, 486, 533, 124, 129, 130-4 "Cooper Union," 415 Copperhead, 427 Corn-Dances, 31 Cora-Feast^, 30 Corn-Shuckings. 30 Corn-Totlngs, 31 Coxe, 98-107 Craven, Dr., 495, 498, 502-5, 507, 510-11, 515, 518-19 Crawford, Judge, 347-8, 352 Creed-Lincoln's, 471 Creign, 577 Crimes, 461 Crisis, 58 Crittendon Resolutions, 189, 301, 320, 164 Custom House, 531-2, 534 Dabney, Gen., 241-4 Dana, 495, 497-8, 492-3, 503, 506, 517, 540-2, 565 "Dark Days," The" 414, 456-7, 485-6 Davenport, Isaac, 533 Davidson, Hunter, 520 Davls, Jefferson, 121, 165-9, 189, 232, 239, 241, 243-5, 330-3, 384, 426, 450, 448-9, 495-9, 500-13, 514-9, 520-9, 530-9, 540-9, 550-9, 560-9, 570-9, 580-9, 590-9, 567-70 Dayton, Johnson, 121 Decision of Court, 541 Declaration f Independence, 4, 53, 92, 94, 104, 204, 329, 355 DeLeon, Perry M., 588 Delusion, 392-4, 436-7, 440-5, 449, 450, 6, 476 Demands of the South, 146-9, 150 Democracy, 5*8, 458, 461 Demolishing the Supreme Court, 139, 331, 347, 400 Desire, The, 34 Despotism, 103, 439-441, 480-6, 458, 400, 549 Detroit Free Press, 300 Devil. The. 525-6, 527 Diary, 575 Diet, 556 Disclosures (?) 116-120 Disregard of Constitution, 182-5 District of Columbia, 420, 489 Divided Sovereignty. 246, 250, 263, 282 Dlx. Gen., 420 Doolady, GOT Douglas, 115, 151, 191, 163, 307. 338, 329, 520 Douglas, Sarah, 494 Drake, 467 Draper, John W,, 366-7 Dred Scott, 50 Drayton, 591 Dryden, 343, 340-7, 360. 473 Dnnmore, Gen., 23, 26-8 Early, Gen., 577 . Eccentricity, 475-480, 482, 475, 478-9 Edwards, Matilda, 469 Eleventh Amendment, 223, 204 Eighteenth Century Reactionists, 320- Elghth Wonder of the World, 443 Egotism, 387-8, 380, 468, 482 Elections in 1862, 456-7 Eleven States, The, 107, HI Elworth, 252, 306 Emancipation, 44, 391, 411-15. 420 2, 427. 441-2, 248-9, 450-5, 485-6 a Enforcing the Law, 484 England, 485, 507-8 Europe, 503, 507 Evarts, 531, 533-5, 539, 540, 243 Events Shaping, 28 Everett, 397 Exchange, 548, 558, 563-5. 578 Excitements of the March, 587 Excuses, 522 Eye Witnesses, 597 Falrfleld, Gov., 152 Fall of the Confederacy. 488 Family of Davls, 490-1, 595 False Issues, 142 False Statesments, 138 False War-Power, 44O-2, 445, 401. 450 Faragut, 588 591 Farlno, 480 Fate, 265, 291, 423, 487 Federal Government, 81-9, 117-8, 76-U 80, 36, 499, 502, 511, 520-5, 526 530, 536-7, 542, 554, 559, 503, 535, 541, 561 Federals, 489-90, 511 Federal Prisoners, 561 Felon 502, 518, 535, 503 Female Garb, 491-2, COS Few of Ga., 118 FFlilfmtyorTee, ar5s80Ago Today, 381-3 Fltzsimmons, 118-119 Florida, 358 Force Against a State, 184 Force Bill, 208-9 Foreigners, 96, 356 Fort Baltimore, 374 Fort Delaware, 657 Fort Lafayette, 373-4 Fort McHenry, 345. 370, 372 Fortress Monroe, 385, 495, 499, SOB, 516, 519, 527, 531 Fort Pickens, 348, 353, 357, 347-8 Fort Sumter, 348-9, 350-8, 342, 384-5, 331- 340, 377-380, 437, 485. "Forty Thieves," 580 Four Parties, The, 588 Fourteenth Amendment, 537 Foxe, 349, 350, 365 BICHAEDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH 595 France, S30, 485 Franklin, 306 Free Blacks In N. In 1SGO 37 Free Blacks In S. In I860, 37 Garfleld, 568 Garrison, Win. Lloyd, 41 Oatea, 84 Genius, 73> 475 Georgia, 72, 63, 120 Georgia, The, 588 Gerry, 109, 110,59 Goethe, 477 Goldboro, 591 Goldsmith, 482, 474, 477 Gordy, J. P., 278-0, 348, 247 Governmental Organic Growth, 250 Grand Army Post, 492 Grant, Gen., 3S1, 427, 488, 518, 529, 551, 060 Greely 296-7, SCO. 305, 445, 533, 409, 410 Gunboat Mauruee, 495 Institution of Slaverq, 33 Iredell, Justice, 203, 247. 282 Irrepressible Conflict, ISO-9 Jackson, David K., 503 Jackson, Hickory, 20U-8. 213. 223. 220 409, 438-450 Jackson, Stonewall, 241, 3S1, 431, 03!), 507 Jay, Chief Justice, 203 Jefferson, Thos., 163-4, 187, 225, 251, 307, 381, 438. 459 Jeffrles, 533 Jewelry, 576 Johnson, Andrew, 301, 421, 492, 495, ft!) 539, 521 Johnson, Ben, 482, 474-5, 541 Johnston, Joe, 241, 529, 53U. 4SS-0 Johnston, Sidney, 241, 52G Jobnston, Preston, 491 Johnston, Beverly, 573 Jones, Dr. Joseph, 547, 5C2 Julian, 590-7 Hague, 221, 2G4, 273 Hale, Edward Everett Jr., 377-9. 3S1, 397, 449, 485 Hallec, Gen., 495-7 Hallucinations, 481, 474-4SO, 482 Hamilton, 5O, C3. 07, 107, 125-0, 248-9, 250-1, 306, 309, 315, 59, 62, 397 Hamlins History (Constitutional). 343- 345 Hampton, Gen., 573-4, 578 Hampton Roads, 495 Hanks, John, 463 Hanks, Nancy, 463-4 Hapgood, 418, 420, 449, 465-470, 483, 461, 468, 473 Harpers Weekly, 416-7 Harrlson, Burton N. 491, 532 Hartford, The, 588 Hartford Convention, 268, 270 Hastings, Warren, 538-9 Hathaway, R. Barton, 533 Henry, Patrick, 18-27 Hennessy, MaJ. J. S., 527 Herndon, 469, 470, 461 Hicks. GOT., SCO, 369 Higher Law, 112, 198, 285, 324, 177 Hill, B. H., 544 History of Slavery, 33 Hltcbcok, Gen., 559-560 Holderlin, 480, 482 Holllns, 595 House of Representatives, 545 Holt, 547-8, 491, 493-4, 495, 520 HUBS, 509 Hunter, Gen., 407 Idiosyncrasies., 481, 475, 477, 467-71, 482 3, 487, 507, 524 Ignorance, 526. 524, 108-9, 122. 123, 245, 439, 455, 520 Imprisonment of Davls, 488 Importation of Slaves. 41 Infidelity of Lincoln 478, 507 Ingraham, Commodore, 531 Insanity, 473, 477, 479, 481, 475, 467-71, 482-3, 487, 507 "Insult to the Flag." 431 Invasion by Another Army, 586 Kearsage, The, 7iS8 Kelley. 545 Kent Gov., l."2 Kentucky Resolutions. 225 King, Rnfus, 1.22 Knapp, 494 Knip, 50 Korte, Capt. Fred, ."Ot Lamb, Chas., 477, 474, 182 Laman, Col., 351 Landor, W. Savage, 477 Lane, Senator, 301 Law Violated and Confessed, 100 )'.] Law of Civilized Ware :>09 Lee, R. E., 431, 239-241, 3S1, 450, 4SS, 509, 535, 539, 591-2, 5S7 Lee, Robt. Henry, IS Lee, Richard Henry, 313 Lee, S. P., 531 Leeds. Mrs. M. L,, 240 Lenan, 478, 482 Lenkern, Tom, 463 Leonora, Francis, 116 Lent, 474 Lexlngton, 581 Liberator, The, 41 Lincoln, 113-9, 120-9, 130-4, 146. lCl-160. 197, 101-2, 203, 348-60. 3G3-372, 3ST-390. 170, 179, 188, 57, 296-4, 305-9. 31S-9, 320-330, 333-5, 336-350, 435-7, 439. 4406, 450, 453-4, 456, 469-75, 458-G5. 471 2, 481, 465-6, 490, 493, 509, 41-44. 179 Lodge, 204 Lombrazo, 474, 4SO Loring, Gen., 381 Lothrop, 386-9, 408, 448-9 Louisiana, 358 Lnbbock, Col., 491 Lucretius 480, 442 Lyon, James, 520, 631, 540 Luther, Martin, 33, 56, 509 Macy, Wm. L., 402 Madison, 60, 59, 81-9. 67, 91-5. 110. 2256, 232, 251, 268. 280, 306-315, 1U3-4, 438, 459 596 RICHARDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH Maffett, SSS Mallory, 589 Mantissas, 526 Man-ot-War, 581 Mars Bluff, 585 Marauders, 489 Marshall, Chief Justice, 390, 397, 402, DOS, MO Martin, Luther, 90, 249-9 Maryland, 73, 95, 312-3 Mason, Jas., 385, 487 Massachusetts, 4u9 Mattering, 90, 247-9 Maury. 588, 592 May, Henry, 370 McClelland, Gen., 326, 567 McCauley, 53S McGovern, Capt., 90, 107, 110, 308, 347 Mcllvaine. Bishop, 384 McKlnley, 459 Medicine Contraband, 453-4, Medwin, 476 "Memoir of Last Year of War," 577 Merrlmae, The, 589 Miles, Gen., 239, 408-9, 517, 519, 520. 529, 531, 497, 492, 500, 502, 504-5, 506 Military Commission, 511, 515 Military Order, 490 Mlnty, Gen., 490, 517 Missouri Compromise, 120-1 Mistake of the South, 52 Moods, three, 471 Morean, 474, 478 Morse, 391, 441-2, 445, 488-9, 450, 453, 455, 458-60, 4S9 Motley, John L., 188, 109-11, 196 "National" struck 26 times, 57 Napoleon, 503 Naval Officers of the South, 590 Navy of TJ. S., 411 Navy of C. F., 411 Nealy, 494 Necessity, 435-8, 441-5, 450-2, 454, 438Negroes as Citizens In North, 51 61, 485, 577 Nelson, Judge, 345-8, 335, 340 Nesblt, 475, 477, 473-8, 479-81, 482 New Haven, 92 New Hampshire, 73-5, 242-3, 311 New Jersey, 71-5, 313 New Species of Patriots, 186 New York Herald, 461 New York, 75, 243, 309 New York Tribune. 384, 184, 501 New York World, 530 Ney's Legal Maxims, 322 Nicnols, Gen., 575 Nine Seasons, 136-142 "Nine States," 59 Nineteenth Century State of Mind, 100 North, 461, 504, 508, 519, 538 Northrop, Col., 512 North Carolina. 76-7, 95, 315 Northern Dissatisfaction, 390 Northern Ministers, 383 Nullification by 13 N. States. 192 Oath of Office, 442-5, 448-9, 450-6 O'Conor, 520-1, 523-4, 527. 531, 533-4, 538-9, 540-1 Official Falsehood Confessed, 575 Orders, 500 Order of Court, 543 "Organic Growth," 256 Ould, Robt. 520, 531, 538, 540-1, 559-60 Paine, 468 Parker, James H., 491 Paschal, 475 Pattern, John H., 494 Patterson, William, 71 Peabody, T. H., 492 Peace Commissioners, 32, 336. 340, 345-6, 348 Peace Congress, The, 196-7, 301-3, 360, Peace Measures, 48 Pelllco, 475, 479, 482 Pendleton, Edwin, 18 Pennsylvania, 70-1; 62 Pennsylvania Gazette, 17 Petition, 561 Philadelphia Evening Journal, 462 Philadelphia Convention, 247-9 Pickens, Gov., 349-352 Plckering, Col., 262, 349 352 Pillans, Prof, 477 Plnckney, Chas., 122 "Pious Fraud," 72-3 Platform Constitution, 1S5-6, 436, 445, 450-4 Platt, Thos., 527 Plymouth, $Z Poe, Edgar Alien, 474, 480-2 Police Board, 370 Policy of Destruction, 577-9 Political Parties (four), 178-9 Porter, 589 Portland Argus, The, 491 Powell Resolutions, 189 Presidents, The, 28, 289 "Prayer, Humiliation and Fasting," 381, 383 Price, Thos., 534 Prltchard, Col., 496, 495, 491-2, 517 "Pure White Republic," The, 450 Puritans, 27 Question (a), 52; 57 Qulncy, Joslah, 275 Randal,, 545 Randolph, Edward, 252 Randolph Resolutions, 57 Ratifying Ordinances, 81 RawJe's View of the Constitution, 240- 5, 291-, 420 Rawle, John, 240 Rawle, Judge Edward Read, Wm. B., 520, 531, 541, 588 Reason Why, 522 Records, The Two, 586 Refugees, 582 Regan, John, 488, 491-5, 529 Relief Squadron, 327-335, 350-2 Reluctance of the South, 182 Report of Committee, 493-4 Report Mutilated, 548,50 Representations of Border Static, 407-s 417 Republican Party, 51, 113-14, 127, Ii9- 132, 136, 149, 195, 445-6, 450, 457-8, 016, 522, 545. 555 Resolutions of Prisoners, 562 BICHASDSON'S DEFENSE OP THE SOUTH 597 Resolutions of Davls, 233 Resolutions of Henry 19 Responsibility for the Wir, 403-!), 420, 433, 557 Restriction Reward for of Slavery, 197, Arrest of Davls, 161, 431 490-1, 519- Retreat from Lynchburg, 577 Rhode Island, 76-9, SO, 95, 111, 243, 309, 315 Richmond Convention, The, 178 Richmond Examiner, The, 560 Riots, 510, 522 Rock Island. 557 Rousseau, 482, 478-9 Rules of War, 523. Rush, 480 Rutledge, Ann, 466-7 Sagamon Journal, 28, 469 Samans, 535 Sand, 479, 482 Sanders, Oeo. N., 490 Schlll, Augustus, 533 Schurz, Carl, 415-6 Scott, Gen., 340, 349, 369 Secession, 182-4, 107, 147, 159-160, 201-3, 287-8, 167, 192, 434, 437-9, 447, 450, 455, 430, 90-2, 106-111, 176, 181, 508-9 Sections equally divided, what? 167 Sedgwlcl, 204 Semmes, 588 Seward, 102, 114, 162 133-6, 345-7 348, 350-4. 374-3S1, 388, 170, 39S-407, 462-488, 520, 530 Seymour, Gov., 417-8 Shackles, 498-9, 500-1, 504-5, 506-7, 516, 518, 525, 535 Shea, 527, 531 Sherman, Gen., 488-9, 491, 511, 572-8, 527, 573 Shelley, 480, 476, 474 Shelley, Mary, 476-7 Silence of the Constitution, 72-8, 162, 125-8. 482 Six False Exaggerations, 138 Slavers, The, 108, 326, 34-5, 47 Slavery, 116-9, 120-1, 123-C, 134-8, 150-8, 158, 197, 326, 381, 385, 165-6, 405-14, 417, 443-7, 450, 45C, 158, 34-5, 47,408, 462-3 458, 482 Small-Pox, 555-6 Smith, Gerrlt, 533 South, The, 129, 132, 159-160, 27, 180, 190, 196, 434, 437, 447, 468, 492 501, 519, 538, 569, 575 Socrates, 535 "Solemn Convocation," The, 243-5 Southern Journal, 28 South Carolina, 73, 120, 147, 207, 213, 214, 221, 348 Southern Presidents and Jurists, 28 Southey, 474, 516 Sovereignty, 70-5, 63, 76-9, 80-9, 90-2, 106, 131, 246, 250, 430 Spain, 380, 508 Spanish Inquisition, 546, 549 Speed, Atty. Gen., 243 Speech of Toombs, 169 Stanton's Report, 559, 562 "States Not Named," 95-6 "Star of the West," 347 Stephens, A. H., 196-207 289, 326, 384, 167-3, 495, 558-9, 561, 566 Stevens, Tradens, 528 Stevens, Dr., 548 Stone Col., 573, 469 Story, Judge, 311-12 Substitutes for the Constitution, 104-5, 114, 177, 27$, 255-9, 261 Suratt, Mrs. 495 Tabbot, Capt 351 Tacony The, 588 Tallahassee, The, 588 Tannahill, 480-2 Tarbell, 414-5, 435, 440 Tasso, 480, 475, 482 Tattnell, 592 Tany, Chief Justice,' 127, 134 Terrtorles, 100, 117, 117, 118, 122, 131, 143, 461 Test, The, 509 Texas, 359 Thayer, James S., 297 Thomas Gen., 340, 534, 529 Thompson, Jacob, 490, 493 Thorpe, 43-6, 76, 88, 90-1, 100-3, 113-8, 122, 140-1, 216-221,. 223, 286, 293, 319, 353-4, 366, 404, 256, 461 Three Despotisms 54 Three Kings, 588 Tilton, Capt. 498 Tltlow, Capt. 500, 514 Todd, Mary, 469-70 Toombs, Robt., 148-158, 161-8, 169-175, ISO Treatment of Prisoners, 511, 544 Trent Affair, The. 385 Trial of Davls, 511, 513, 516 Troubesome Question, The, 57 Trumbnll, 297 Tucker, Beverly, 491 Tucker, Randolph, 531 Twelfth Amendment, 233 Two Records, The, 587 Uncivilized War, 261, 432 Uncle Toms Cabin, 41, 99, 103, 112, 288, 420 Underwood, Judge, 521, 527, 531-3, 535, 538-9. 540 Union Soldiers, 533 Unwritten Constitution, 97-9, 100-3, 111, 285, 325 Upton, Gen., 489; 490; 540 Vanlandlngham, 417-418 Vanderbilt, Cornelius. 533 Vantlne, C. H. 267 Vattel, 87; 509 Verplank, 213; 223 Vindicated, 542 Violated Constitution, 72-8; 162, 125-8; 104-5; 114; 177; 278, 2259; 261; 438; 442-5; 450; 440-5 Violent Debate, 21 Violence, 466 Visions, 472; 476 Virginia, 74-5; 95; 120; 213-17; 226; 245; 309; 360-4 Virginian Professsr, The, 262-7 Volney, 486 Voltaire, 466 598 RICHABDSON'S DEFENSE OF THE SOUTH Wadell, 088 Warren Hastings, 088-9 , , Washington College, 517 Wadsworth, UfL Wallace, S. Teacle. 370 Walworth. Chancellor, 299 War. The, 128: 60; 826 Washington, 27. 65; 67; 70; 110; 208; 283; 2S7; 307 ;315; 409; 438; 459; 487; 523 Washington City, 020 Webster, Daniel, 68; 111; 123; 218-221; 223; 250-275; 280-284; 287; 307; 291; 343; C70 We, the People." fll-2; 85-8; 107 Weed, Thurlow, 384 Welch, 303; 381; 933 Wells, Gideon, 353-4. 381, 041, 550 West Point Military Academy, 230-240; 420 When the States were eleven to eleven, 49 White, Dr., 550 Whltehead, 040Whltney, 471; 481-3 Wlckllff, 009 Wllfces, Chap Charles. 3S5-0 Wllkens, 208 Wtlklnson, 588 Williams, 478 William P. Clyde, The; 817 Wllllamson, 509, 589 Wllmer, Bishop. 240 Wllmer, Joseph, 241 Wilson, Gen., 490-1; 493; 495; 517 Wilson, John, 306 Wilson, Justice, 203 Winder, Gen.. 649, 450-2 Wlnslow. C91 Win, 547, 549-550; 003; 50* Wise, Henry A., 090 Wltnoaa, 53U Yancy, Ben, 384 Youth, 466-8