The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-02-23
difficult matter 10 determine whet


Republican leaders who SO warmly approve the
tenor of Mr.. LINCOLN Indianapolis Speech really
misapprehend, like him. the character of the cri-
SIS or are endeayoring, by q perverson OF the
TRUTH to retain the confidence and support OF their
party. But whatever doubts may exist upon this
point there surely be little difference of opin-
ion among sensible men in regard to the utter
absurdity of the argument which has been ad
dressed to the people Of the North, in order to
induce them to sustain the policy which the in
coming administration proposes to adopt towards
the seeding States. nir. LINCOLN does notintend,
we are told, to make war upon his misguided and
rebelious brethren of the South, nor does he even
contemplate the idea of coercing them into sub
mission to his government. He has merely deter
mined to enforce the federal laws, to rc-take the
forts and to protect the public property within the
territory of the Southern Confederacy. The whole
argument may be found summed up in the follow
ing sentences, from late editorial In the New
York Times, the italics, however, being our own.
Mr.. LINCOLN says that journal,
at indianapolis expressed himself decidedly against
coercion but mildly inquired whether the Government
might not proceed to execute The revenue lGlcs?"
And in the same luminous article it undertakes
any resort to coercive measures. 1t complacenty
observes:
ssBy the command we have of the sea- we hold the
whole issue in hands No proposes TO fight them
them If they do not want the benefits of Gov
eminent, well dispense with what it costs to
tend them. But unless matters settled to entire
satisfaction, shall collect at SOahern ports
as 'ce hare done since the formation Of the Gorenment
after satisfied. the Confederacy can levy
large duty they choose for their necessities.
By such puerile sugges tons as these the Times,
like many of its contemporaries hopes to disabuse
the public mind of the alarm that the very antci-
patton of war so naturally causes, and to commit
the Northern people to the policy which Mr. LIN
COLIN seems to have made up his mind to pursue.
The Times certainly calculates largely on the OBJ
tuseness of its readers, when it attempts TO draw
distinction between coercion and the measures it
approves. 1t is not coercion, according to this
theory, to station n ship-of-war almost within
gun-shot of every Southern port and levy tribute
upon its commerce. The enforcement of a law at
the lannon's mouth is not coercion. To compel
people, at the point of the bayonet, to obey
statute which they are resisting, is not coercion.
To blockade city until the inhabitants recognize
and submit to the authority of the officials who
are stationed on board of the hostile fleet, is not
NSStN4NH'
TO do; but Mr.. LINCOLN is, we are assured, deci-
dedly against coercion. He only wishes to "exe-
'cute the revenue laws" and his parsans in
Congress, in order to enable him to carry out his
peaceful project, about to pass an act which,
by some queer misnomer, has long been known as
the Force Bill. We had always imagined that
when men were compelled, against their remon-
srances and wishes, to submit TO any ordinance
or condition of things whatsoever, they in
such case ceerced-lhat it was impossible TO
speak of enforcing the laws against rebellious
people and still exclude the idea that any con-
straint had been exercised. IT, however, We are
mistaken upon this point, it follows that the Gen.
eral Government can execute, in the seeding
States, every act that Congress has ever passed,
or may yet pass, and that such action cannot pro-
perry be regarded as coercive; for the revenue
laws stand, in this respect, different footing
from other laws. 1t may enforce the DEGREES of
the Federal courts, affecting the lives and prop
erty of Southern ciuZens-it may prevent the
coming of money, the establishment of post
routes, the organization of navy and army-it
may impose upon an insurgent people a govern
ment which they have repudiated, and hang and
abrogated and it still gravely aver that it
has not upheld its authority by coercive measures.
The absurdity of the distinction between block
aiding port and coercing a people is too manifest
to be disputed. A blockade is coercve measure
as well as a commandments; the difference between
them is, that is milder form of coercion than
the other. We do not, however, propose to dis
cuss the legal right Of the Government 10 attempt
to enforce its laws, we only insist thatit contem
plated policy shall be called by the proper name.
We simply maintain that the means 10 which Mr.
LINCOLN proposes TO resort, in order to compel the
Gulf States TO return TO the Confederacy, are
coercive and further assert that coercion is at
this juncture, equivalent TO civil war. 1t is one of
the most unfortunate facts connected with this
crisis, that the advisers and supporters of the in-
coming administration apparently unable to
comprehend the magnitude of the issue with which
they have been called on TO deal. They are pre-
pairing to subdue mob suppress a riot, when
they are confronted by nation in arms. While
they taking steps to enforce the laws they re-
fuse to consider whether the Southern people have
not both the will and the power to resist them
successfully. They propose to close the Southern
harbors without pausing to reflect upon the fact
that they may thereby furnish history with par.
allel chapter to that which records the conse-
quences that ensued when George III. closed the
port of Boston.