Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1861-02-14
From the Southern Guardian.
Republican Consistency--The Forts.

From the Southern Guardian.
Republican consistency--The Forts.
The Republicans say that State can
not secede from the Union. Very well.-
Then South Carolina is, to all intents and
purposes, in the Union. Let her ordinance
be regarded as nullity, and all that her
Governor and people have done be regar.
ded as done by State in the Union, hav-
ing never attempted to get out of it. She
is no more responsible for the acts of her
citizens than Maryland would be for hers,
under like circumstances. This follows,
irresistibly, from the premises. Suppose
Fort MoHenry deserted, her guns spiked
and gun.carriages burnt, and one hundred
men from Baltimore take possession of it,
unspike the guns, re6t the carriages, and
occupy it: would they be guilty of any Of:
fence? The fort having been placed there
for the protection of Baltimore, and the
United States being bound to keepit gunned
and garrisoued, should say they had
committed no offence at all. But, as de-
sire to leave open no debatable ground, I
will admit the most that any lawyer could
contend for, to wit: that they had commit
ted the very mildest kind Of a trespass.-
Suppose the officer in charge Of it demands
possession of it, and 'he occupants refuse
to give it up: how is he to get possession
of it? Bring strong body Of armed men
and force them out at the cost or peril of
life? By no means; he is to get them out
just as 1 would have to get them out, if
my house were occupied by them, in like
manner; l. c. by suit at law. ....
Once more: suppose the fort garrisoned
that Governor Hicks orders five hundred
men to 20 and take it at all hazards. They
20, storm the fort, put every man Of the
garrison to death, repair the guns, and pro.
claim that they will surrender it only with
their lives-the Governor, meantime, en-.
couragiug them, and promising them any
amount of auccor they might require
Would the United States be justified 10 at
tackiug the fort with an overwhelming
armament, battering it to pieces and killing
the occupants? Answer the question, Mr..
Winter Davis. 1t is the strongest case
that 1 can conceive of Answer it, any
lawyer in the Union who values his reputa.
ton. Answer it in the affirmative if you
conscientiously can, and come out, and let
US by calm discussion fortify or reform pub
lie opinion at the North, upon these wal
measures which the President is pursuing
against the occupants of the Southern forts.
I have been away from the law books fol
twenty years, but boldly assert that, even
in the startling case put, the President
would have no authority Of his own mere
will to attack the fort. No, not even after
lawful demand of it, and refusal of the oc'
cupants to deliver it up. No force could
lawfully attack them, but force acting
under the Marshal of tho District himself
acting under legal warrant; and then only
to the extent necessary to arrest the cul
prits, in order to bring them to trial fol
murder.
On the trial they would plead the Gov
ernor's order in justification of their con
duct The Court would tell them that th.
Governors order was nullity, and tha
they were not bound to obey it. They
would be condemned to death. And nov
let me add few new features to the case
to show the crying injustice Of the Presi
dents mode of protecting the public prop
erty."
The culprits are condemned-the citi
zens of Baltimore by thousands petition th'
President to pardon them, setting fortl
that the garrison we're nest Of land-pirates
forgers, robbers, incendiaries and insurrec
tionists. These things could not be givel
in evidence on the trial; but has there eve
been a President, who, upon reasonable
proof of them, would not pardon the con
victs without second thought? Wher
the Convention clothed him with the par
doning power, did they ever dream that h'
would ever render that power nugatory, b.
assuming all the powers of the judiciar.
and its ministers, under the plea of seeing
the laws faithfully executed, and protect
ing the public property? In the case put
who would think of holding the State o
Maryland responsible for the acts of he
Governor and his murderous agents p
Who, out of bedlam, would think of ma
king war upon Maryland for this matter
would talk of blockading her ports, deny
ing her postal privileges, bringing hostil'
troops within gun.shot Of Baltimore, closing
her port as port Of entry, exhausting th'
vocabulary of abuse upon her, and annoy
ing her in every conceivable way?
Now, compare the case supposed will
South Carolina's operations. Supposin!
herself out of the Union, she is uneasy a
bout the garrlsoned forts IN her harbor; sh'
is quieted by the pledges of the Executive
Her commissioners visit him for the pur
pose of negotiation. Just as the confer
ence isabout to begin, under the President
special limitations, the officer in charge o
the forts abandons the weak one, spike
the guns, burns the carriages and concen
trates all his forces in the strongest fort il
the harbor. An alteration ensues, which
it is unnecessary to rehearse. With O.
without the Governors order I know no
which) South Carolina troops take posses
sion of the fort and re6t it No demand
has ever been made for it. The change o
forts by the garrison was hostile move
ment. War is denounced against her b.
President, Congressman, Generals, Cover
nors, and thousands upon thousands more
Troons. upsolieited and un-peeded, are sen