American Eloquence, Volume IV. (of 4) by Various

V >> Various >> American Eloquence, Volume IV. (of 4)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

In the next place, it provides that that being so, the military
commander in that district may make and publish such police rules and
regulations as he may deem necessary to suppress the rebellion and
restore order and preserve the lives and property of citizens. I submit
to him, if the President of the United States has power, or ought to
have power, to suppress insurrection and rebellion, is there any better
way to do it, or is there any other? The gentleman says, do it by the
civil power. Look at the fact. The civil power is utterly overwhelmed;
the courts are closed; the judges banished. Is the President not
to execute the law? Is he to do it in person, or by his military
commanders? Are they to do it with regulation, or without it? That is
the only question.

Mr. President, the honorable Senator says there is a state of war. The
Senator from Vermont agrees with him; or rather, he agrees with the
Senator from Vermont in that. What then? There is a state of public war;
none the less war because it is urged from the other side; not the
less war because it is unjust; not the less war because it is a war of
insurrection and rebellion. It is still war; and I am willing to say it
is public war,--public as contra-distinguished from private war. What
then? Shall we carry that war on? Is it his duty as a Senator to carry
it on? If so, how? By armies under command; by military organization
and authority, advancing to suppress insurrection and rebellion. Is that
wrong? Is that unconstitutional? Are we not bound to do, with whomever
levies war against us, as we would do if he were a foreigner? There
is no distinction as to the mode of carrying on war; we carry on war
against an advancing army just the same, whether it be from Russia or
from South Carolina. Will the honorable Senator tell me it is our duty
to stay here, within fifteen miles of the enemy seeking to advance
upon us every hour, and talk about nice questions of constitutional
construction as to whether it is war or merely insurrection? No, sir. It
is our duty to advance, if we can; to suppress insurrection; to put down
rebellion; to dissipate the rising; to scatter the enemy; and when we
have done so, to preserve, in the terms of the bill, the liberty, lives,
and property of the people of the country, by just and fair police
regulations. I ask the Senator from Indiana, (Mr. Lane,) when we took
Monterey, did we not do it there?

When we took Mexico, did we not do it there? Is it not a part, a
necessary, an indispensable part of war itself, that there shall be
military regulations over the country conquered and held? Is that
unconstitutional?

I think it was a mere play of words that the Senator indulged in when he
attempted to answer the Senator from New York. I did not understand the
Senator from New York to mean anything else substantially but this, that
the Constitution deals generally with a state of peace, and that
when war is declared it leaves the condition of public affairs to be
determined by the law of war, in the country where the war exists. It is
true that the Constitution of the United States does adopt the laws of
war as a part of the instrument itself, during the continuance of
war. The Constitution does not provide that spies shall be hung. Is it
unconstitutional to hang a spy? There is no provision for it in terms in
the Constitution; but nobody denies the right, the power, the justice.
Why? Because it is part of the law of war. The Constitution does not
provide for the exchange of prisoners; yet it may be done under the law
of war. Indeed the Constitution does not provide that a prisoner may be
taken at all; yet his captivity is perfectly just and constitutional.
It seems to me that the Senator does not, will not take that view of the
subject.

Again, sir, when a military commander advances, as I trust, if there are
no more unexpected great reverses, he will advance, through Virginia
and occupies the country, there, perhaps, as here, the civil law may
be silent; there perhaps the civil officers may flee as ours have been
compelled to flee. What then? If the civil law is silent, who shall
control and regulate the conquered district, who but the military
commander? As the Senator from Illinois has well said, shall it be done
by regulation or without regulation? Shall the general, or the colonel,
or the captain, be supreme, or shall he be regulated and ordered by the
President of the United States? That is the sole question. The Senator
has put it well.

I agree that we ought to do all we can to limit, to restrain, to fetter
the abuse of military power. Bayonets are at best illogical arguments. I
am not willing, except as a case of sheerest necessity, ever to permit
a military commander to exercise authority over life, liberty, and
property. But, sir, it is part of the law of war; you cannot carry
in the rear of your army your courts; you cannot organize juries; you
cannot have trials according to the forms and ceremonial of the
common law amid the clangor of arms, and somebody must enforce police
regulations in a conquered or occupied district. I ask the Senator from
Kentucky again respectfully, is that unconstitutional; or if in the
nature of war it must exist, even if there be no law passed by us to
allow it, is it unconstitutional to regulate it? That is the question,
to which I do not think he will make a clear and distinct reply.

Now, sir, I have shown him two sections of the bill, which I do not
think he will repeat earnestly are unconstitutional. I do not think that
he will seriously deny that it is perfectly constitutional to limit, to
regulate, to control, at the same time to confer and restrain authority
in the hands of military commanders. I think it is wise and judicious
to regulate it by virtue of powers to be placed in the hands of the
President by law.

Now, a few words, and a few only, as to the Senator's predictions. The
Senator from Kentucky stands up here in a manly way in opposition to
what he sees is the overwhelming sentiment of the Senate, and utters
reproof,malediction, and prediction combined. Well, sir, it is not every
prediction that is prophecy. It is the easiest thing in the world to do;
there is nothing easier, except to be mistaken when we have predicted. I
confess, Mr. President, that I would not have predicted three weeks ago
the disasters which have overtaken our arms; and I do not think (if I
were to predict now) that six months hence the Senator will indulge in
the same tone of prediction which is his favorite key now. I would ask
him what would you have us do now--a confederate army within twenty
miles of us, advancing, or threatening to advance, to overwhelm your
Government; to shake the pillars of the Union; to bring it around your
head, if you stay here, in ruins? Are we to stop and talk about an
uprising sentiment in the North against the war? Are we to predict evil,
and retire from what we predict? Is it not the manly part to go on as
we have begun, to raise money, and levy armies, to organize them, to
prepare to advance; when we do advance, to regulate that advance by all
the laws and regulations that civilization and humanity will allow in
time of battle? Can we do anything more? To talk to us about stopping,
is idle; we will never stop. Will the Senator yield to rebellion? Will
he shrink from armed insurrection? Will his State justify it? Will its
better public opinion allow it? Shall we send a flag of truce? What
would he have? Or would he conduct this war so feebly, that the whole
world would smile at us in derision? What would he have? These speeches
of his, sown broadcast over the land, what clear distinct meaning have
they? Are they not intended for disorganization in our very midst? Are
they not intended to dull our weapons? Are they not intended to destroy
our zeal? Are they not intended to animate our enemies? Sir, are they
not words of brilliant, polished treason, even in the very Capitol of
the Confederacy? (Manifestations of applause in the galleries.)

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Anthony in the chair). Order!

MR. BAKER. What would have been thought if, in another Capitol, in
another Republic, in a yet more martial age, a senator as grave, not
more eloquent or dignified than the Senator from Kentucky, yet with
the Roman purple flowing over his shoulders, had risen in his place,
surrounded by all the illustrations of Roman glory, and declared that
advancing Hannibal was just, and that Carthage ought to be dealt with
in terms of peace? What would have been thought if, after the battle of
Canne, a senator there had risen in his place and denounced every levy
of the Roman people, every expenditure of its treasure, and every appeal
to the old recollections and the old glories? Sir, a Senator, himself
learned far more than myself in such lore (Mr. Fessenden), tells me, in
a voice that I am glad is audible, that he would have been hurled
from the Tarpeian rock. It is a grand commentary upon the American
Constitution that we permit these words to be uttered. I ask the Senator
to recollect, too, what, save to send aid and comfort to the enemy, do
these predictions of his amount to? Every word thus uttered falls as a
note of inspiration upon every confederate ear. Every sound thus uttered
is a word (and falling from his lips, a mighty word) of kindling and
triumph to a foe that determines to advance. For me, I have no such
word as a Senator to utter. For me, amid temporary defeat, disaster,
disgrace, it seems that my duty calls me to utter another word, and that
word is, bold, sudden, forward, determined war, according to the laws
of war, by armies, by military commanders clothed with full power,
advancing with all the past glories of the Republic urging them to
conquest.

I do not stop to consider whether it is subjugation or not. It is
compulsory obedience, not to my will; not to yours, sir; not to the
will of any one man; not to the will of any one State; but compulsory
obedience to the Constitution of the whole country. The Senator chose
the other day again and again to animadvert on a single expression in
a little speech which I delivered before the Senate, in which I took
occasion to say that if the people of the rebellious States would not
govern themselves as States, they ought to be governed as Territories.
The Senator knew full well then, for I explained it twice--he knows full
well now--that on this side of the Chamber; nay, in this whole Chamber;
nay, in this whole North and West; nay, in all the loyal States in all
their breadth, there is not a man among us all who dreams of causing any
man in the South to submit to any rule, either as to life, liberty, or
property, that we ourselves do not willingly agree to yield to. Did
he ever think of that? Subjugation for what? When we subjugate South
Carolina, what shall we do? We shall compel its obedience to the
Constitution of the United States; that is all. Why play upon words?
We do not mean, we have never said, any more. If it be slavery that men
should obey the Constitution their fathers fought for, let it be so. If
it be freedom, it is freedom equally for them and for us. We propose to
subjugate rebellion into loyalty; we propose to subjugate insurrection
into peace; we propose to subjugate confederate anarchy into
constitutional Union liberty. The Senator well knows that we propose
no more. I ask him, I appeal to his better judgment now, what does he
imagine we intend to do, if fortunately we conquer Tennessee or South
Carolina--call it "conquer," if you will, sir--what do we propose to
do? They will have their courts still; they will have their ballot-boxes
still; they will have their elections still; they will have their
representatives upon this floor still; they will have taxation and
representation still; they will have the writ of _habeas corpus_ still;
they will have every privilege they ever had and all we desire. When the
confederate armies are scattered; when their leaders are banished from
power; when the people return to a late repentant sense of the wrong
they have done to a Government they never felt but in benignancy and
blessing, then the Constitution made for all will be felt by all,
like the descending rains from heaven which bless all alike. Is that
subjugation? To restore what was, as it was, for the benefit of the
whole country and of the whole human race, is all we desire and all we
can have.

* * * * *

I tell the Senator that his predictions, sometimes for the South,
sometimes for the Middle States, sometimes for the Northeast, and then
wandering away in airy visions out to the far Pacific, about the dread
of our people, as for loss of blood and treasure, provoking them to
disloyalty, are false in sentiment, false in fact, and false in loyalty.
The Senator from Kentucky is mistaken in them all. Five hundred million
dollars! What then? Great Britain gave more than two thousand million
in the great battle for constitutional liberty which she led at one time
almost single-handed against the world. Five hundred thousand men! What
then? We have them; they are ours; they are the children of the country.
They belong to the whole country; they are our sons; our kinsmen; and
there are many of us who will give them all up before we will abate one
word of our just demand, or will retreat one inch from the line which
divides right from wrong.

Sir, it is not a question of men or of money in that sense. All the
money, all the men, are, in our judgment, well bestowed in such a cause.
When we give them, we know their value. Knowing their value well, we
give them with the more pride and the more joy. Sir, how can we retreat?
Sir, how can we make peace? Who shall treat? What commissioners? Who
would go? Upon what terms? Where is to be your boundary line? Where
the end of the principles we shall have to give up? What will become of
constitutional government? What will become of public liberty? What
of past glories? What of future hopes? Shall we sink into the
insignificance of the grave--a degraded, defeated, emasculated people,
frightened by the results of one battle, and scared at the visions
raised by the imagination of the Senator from Kentucky upon this floor?
No, sir; a thousand times, no, sir! We will rally--if, indeed, our words
be necessary--we will rally the people, the loyal people, of the whole
country. They will pour forth their treasure, their money, their men,
without stint, without measure. The most peaceable man in this body may
stamp his foot upon this Senate-Chamber floor, as of old a warrior and
a senator did, and from that single stamp there will spring forth armed
legions. Shall one battle determine the fate of an empire? or, the loss
of one thousand men or twenty thousand, or $100,000,000 or $500,000,000?
In a year's peace, in ten years, at most, of peaceful progress, we can
restore them all. There will be some graves reeking with blood, watered
by the tears of affection. There will be some privation; there will
be some loss of luxury; there will be somewhat more need for labor to
procure the necessaries of life. When that is said, all is said. If we
have the country, the whole country, the Union, the Constitution,
free government--with these there will return all the blessings of
well-ordered civilization; the path of the country will be a career of
greatness and of glory such as, in the olden time, our fathers saw in
the dim visions of years yet to come, and such as would have been ours
now, to-day, if it had not been for the treason for which the Senator
too often seeks to apologize.

MR. BRECKENRIDGE. Mr. President, I have tried on more than one occasion
in the Senate, in parliamentary and respectful language, to express my
opinions in regard to the character of our Federal system, the relations
of the States to the Federal Government, to the Constitution, the
bond of the Federal political system. They differ utterly from those
entertained by the Senator from Oregon. Evidently, by his line of
argument, he regards this as an original, not a delegated Government,
and he regards it as clothed with all those powers which belong to an
original nation, not only with those powers which are delegated by the
different political communities that compose it, and limited by the
written Constitution that forms the bond of Union. I have tried to
show that, in the view that I take of our Government, this war is
an unconstitutional war. I do not think the Senator from Oregon has
answered my argument. He asks, what must we do? As we progress southward
and invade the country, must we not, said he, carry with us all the laws
of war? I would not progress southward and invade the country.

The President of the United States, as I again repeat, in my judgment
only has the power to call out the military to assist the civil
authority in executing the laws; and when the question assumes the
magnitude and takes the form of a great political severance, and nearly
half the members of the Confederacy withdraw themselves from it, what
then? I have never held that one State or a number of States have a
right without cause to break the compact of the Constitution. But what I
mean to say is that you cannot then undertake to make war in the name of
the Constitution. In my opinion they are out. You may conquer them; but
do not attempt to do it under what I consider false political pretenses.
However, sir, I will not enlarge upon that. I have developed these ideas
again and again, and I do not care to re-argue them. Hence the Senator
and I start from entirely different stand-points, and his pretended
replies are no replies at all.

The Senator asks me, "What would you have us do?" I have already
intimated what I would have us do. I would have us stop the war. We
can do it. I have tried to show that there is none of that inexorable
necessity to continue this war which the Senator seems to suppose. I do
not hold that constitutional liberty on this continent is bound up in
this fratricidal, devastating, horrible contest. Upon the contrary, I
fear it will find its grave in it. The Senator is mistaken in supposing
that we can reunite these States by war. He is mistaken in supposing
that eighteen or twenty million upon the one side can subjugate ten or
twelve million upon the other; or, if they do subjugate them, that you
can restore constitutional government as our fathers made it. You will
have to govern them as Territories, as suggested by the Senator, if
ever they are reduced to the dominion of the United States, or, as the
Senator from Vermont called them, "those rebellious provinces of this
Union," in his speech to-day. Sir, I would prefer to see these States
all reunited upon true constitutional principles to any other object
that could be offered me in life; and to restore, upon the principles
of of our fathers, the Union of these States, to me the sacrifice of one
unimportant life would be nothing; nothing, sir. But I infinitely prefer
to see a peaceful separation of these States, than to see endless,
aimless, devastating war, at the end of which I see the grave of public
liberty and of personal freedom.'

CLEMENT L. VALLANDIGHAM,

OF OHIO. (BORN 1820, DIED 1871.)

ON THE WAR AND ITS CONDUCT;

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 14, 1863.

SIR, I am one of that number who have opposed abolitionism, or the
political development of the antislavery sentiment of the North and
West, from the beginning. In school, at college, at the bar, in public
assemblies, in the Legislature, in Congress, boy and man, in time of
peace and in time of war, at all times and at every sacrifice, I have
fought against it. It cost me ten years' exclusion from office and honor
at that period of life when honors are sweetest. No matter; I learned
early to do right and to wait. Sir, it is but the development of the
spirit of intermeddling, whose children are strife and murder. Cain
troubled himself about the sacrifices of Abel, and slew his brother.
Most of the wars, contentions, litigation, and bloodshed, from the
beginning of time, have been its fruits. The spirit of non-intervention
is the very spirit of peace and concord. * * *

The spirit of intervention assumed the form of abolitionism because
slavery was odious in name and by association to the Northern mind,
and because it was that which most obviously marks the different
civilizations of the two sections. The South herself, in her early and
later efforts to rid herself of it, had exposed the weak and offensive
parts of slavery to the world. Abolition intermeddling taught her
at last to search for and defend the assumed social, economic, and
political merit and values of the institution. But there never was an
hour from the beginning when it did not seem to me as clear as the sun
at broad noon that the agitation in any form in the North and West of
the slavery question must sooner or later end in disunion and civil war.
This was the opinion and prediction for years of Whig and Democratic
statesmen alike; and, after the unfortunate dissolution of the Whig
party in 1854, and the organization of the present Republican party upon
the exclusive antislavery and sectional basis, the event was inevitable,
because, in the then existing temper of the public mind, and after
the education through the press and the pulpit, the lecture and the
political canvass, for twenty years, of a generation taught to hate
slavery and the South, the success of that party, possessed as it was
of every engine of political, business, social, and religious influence,
was certain. It was only a question of time, and short time. Such
was its strength, indeed, that I do not believe that the union of the
Democratic party in 1860 on any candidate, even though he had been
supported also by the entire so-called conservative or anti-Lincoln vote
of the country, would have availed to defeat it; and, if it had, the
success of the Abolition party would only have been postponed four years
longer. The disease had fastened too strongly upon the system to be
healed until it had run its course. The doctrine of "the irrepressible
conflict" had been taught too long, and accepted too widely and
earnestly, to die out until it should culminate in secession and
disunion, and, if coercion were resorted to, then in civil war. I
believed from the first that it was the purpose of some of the apostles
of that doctrine to force a collision between the North and the South,
either to bring about a separation or to find a vain but bloody pretext
for abolishing slavery in the States. In any event, I knew, or thought I
knew, that the end was certain collision and death to the Union.

Believing thus, I have for years past denounced those who taught that
doctrine, with all the vehemence, the bitterness, if you choose--I
thought it a righteous, a patriotic bitterness--of an earnest and
impassioned nature. * * * But the people did not believe me, nor those
older and wiser and greater than I. They rejected the prophecy, and
stoned the prophets. The candidate of the Republican party was chosen
President. Secession began. Civil war was imminent. It was no petty
insurrection, no temporary combination to obstruct the execution of
the laws in certain States, but a revolution, systematic, deliberate,
determined, and with the consent of a majority of the people of each
State which seceded. Causeless it may have been, wicked it may have
been, but there it was--not to be railed at, still less to be laughed
at, but to be dealt with by statesmen as a fact. No display of vigor or
force alone, however sudden or great, could have arrested it even at the
outset. It was disunion at last. The wolf had come, but civil war had
not yet followed. In my deliberate and solemn judgment there was but
one wise and masterly mode of dealing with it. Non-coercion would avert
civil war, and compromise crush out both abolitionism and secession. The
parent and the child would thus both perish. But a resort to force would
at once precipitate war, hasten secession, extend disunion, and while it
lasted utterly cut off all hope of compromise. I believed that war, if
long enough continued, would be final, eternal disunion. I said it; I
meant it; and accordingly, to the utmost of my ability and influence, I
exerted myself in behalf of the policy of non-coercion. It was adopted
by Mr. Buchanan's administration, with the almost unanimous consent of
the Democratic and Constitutional Union parties in and out of Congress;
and in February, with the consent of a majority of the Republican party
in the Senate and the House. But that party most disastrously for the
country refused all compromise. How, indeed, could they accept any? That
which the South demanded, and the Democratic and Conservative parties of
the North and West were willing to grant, and which alone could avail to
keep the peace and save the Union, implied a surrender of the sole vital
element of the party and its platform, of the very principle, in fact,
upon which it had just won the contest for the Presidency, not, indeed,
by a majority of the popular vote--the majority was nearly a million
against it,--but under the forms of the Constitution. Sir, the crime,
the "high crime," of the Republican party was not so much its refusal
to compromise, as its original organization upon a basis and doctrine
wholly inconsistent with the stability of the Constitution and the peace
of the Union.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19