The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1861-06-21

ment Of civil war, the border States, follow
ing the natural bent Of their sympathies, would
array themselves against the Government
Fort Sumter, occupied by feeble garrison,
and girdled by powerful, II not impregnable
batteries, Afforded convenient means for accom-
plishing their purpose, and for testing, also,
their hyorite theory that blood was needed 10
cement the new Confederacy. Its provisions
were exhausted, and the request made by the
President in the interests Of peace and human
ity, for the privilege Of replenishng its stores,
had been refused, The Confederate authors
ties were aware-for SO the gallant commander
Of the fort had declared to them-that in two
days a capitulaton from starvation must take
place. A peaceful surrender. however, would
not have subseryed their aims. They sought
| the clash VI arms and the eiiusion of blood Us
an fundamentally for imprcssing the border
States, and they sought the humiliation Of the
Government and the dishOnor Of its flag as u
means Of giving prestige to their own cause
The result is known"
Mr.. Holt further says:
"Had the Southern members continued in
their seats, n satisfactory compromise would, no
doubt, have been arranged before the ADJOURN
ment Of Congress. AS II was, after their re-
tirement, and after Congress had become Re-
publican, an amendment to the Constitution
was adopted by a two-thirCls vote, declaring
that Congress shall never interfere with slavery
in the States, and declaring, further, that this
amendment should be irreyOcable."
Not to multiply proofs Of this disposition
to concilatc, We will only say that there was
never moment when the Republicans in
Congress would not have given their AS
sent to u convention composed of dele
gates chosen by the people of every state"
and invested it with full power. to "adjust the
whole controversy in the true spirit of the
American principles of government" This
we know was offered. and rejected by South
ern men. They wanted pledges that the
convention should so alter the provisions OF
the Constitution as to meet their notions, or
rather they wanted dismion. These are
facts within the knowledge OF every man,
and vet the Democrat declares the SANDER
that the Republicans rejected compromise. "
F" Blistcred be the tongue of the liar that
uttered it,"
We know not how the editor Of tho Dem
ocrat can escape public censurc when in the
face of history, in the face Of the record, it
deliberately and wickedly perverts tho truth
US it does in this matter.
But we pass from this Justification of his
tory to the following full and perfect justi-
6cation of secession which we find in Demo-
Gratis columns. 1t says:
Z" We think they hare in the principles Of
he american system Of Government juStlica-
tion for their proceedings; and tre think they
| should be dealt iCih by the Union as hdring
right 10 a government Of their oTR, II they
deem such separate gOrerRmeRt sssentldiio their
s9jsiy and happiness"
The difficulty with the editor of the Dem.
ocrat is, that in his anxiety to find excuses
for treason, he asserts principles, which, if
carried into practice would lead to total an
archy, which would give the people of every
county, nay of every ncighborhoOd, the
right of making a separate government" IL
they deem such essential to their safety and
happiness" and ho confounds and so mixes
ideas us to make no difference between the
sacred right of revolution and that of seccs-
sion. Under our constitution there is moth
Ing like the idea of secession entertained
Our early statesmen wisely made our gov
eminent, not league between States, but
covenant between the people of all the
States. The restrictions ON the States that
they should not coin money, should not have
armies and nayics, should not make war or
conclude peace and the guarantees of rcpub-
lcan governments to the States, to suppress
instructions. incOntestably prove that there
was no intention whatever on the part OF
the men who framed the government to adj
nit for moment this novel and anarchial
doctrine of secession. The clamor Of the
Democrat is that " the inhabitants of each
of the states of our Union constitute
PEOPLE" in such sense as to give them the
right to retako their sovereignty. No states
men ever held to tins delusive idea. WASH
ington, jefferson, and Madison repudiated
such idea. jackson in his famous procla-
nation on notification forever dissipatcd it.
Clay and Webster, Marcy and Cass, indeed
the public men Of all parties, with the ex.
ception of the politicians of the disunion
schools have uttered testimony against it;
and within the range of history there cannot
be found, either in the acts Of our govern
ment or in the declarations Of the statesmen
who have guided it, except those of the CAL
houn school, single word to sustain the
doctrine. And here passing from dead
statesmen to the living, let us hear what MIR.
Holt, and no is Democrat, says on this
point.
"In 1914, the Richmond Enquirer, then, as
now, the organ OF public opinion in the South,
pronounced secession TO be treason, and moth
ing else, and such was then the doctrine of
Southern statesmen. What was true then Is
true now. The prevalence OF this pernicious
heresy is merely the fruit of that farce called
estate rights" which demagogues have been
playing under tragic mask, and which has done
more than all things else to unsettle the foun-
da,ions of the Republic, by estranging the peo-
pie from the Federal Government, as one TO be
distrusted and resisted, instead OF being, what
il il. emphatically their own creation, at all
times obedient t. their will. and In its ministra-
tons the grandest reflex of the greatness and
benefcence OF popular power that has ever en-
nobled the history of our race. Said Mr. Clay:
Il owe a supreme allegiance to the General
Government, and to my State subordinate
one And this terse language disposes Of the
whole controversy which has arisen out Of the
secession movement in regard to the allegiance
of the citizen. AS the power Of the State and
Federal Governments are in perfect harmony
with each other, so there can be no conflict be-
tween the allegiance due to them; each, while
acting within the sphere Of its constitutional
authority, Is entitled to be obeyed; but when a
State, throwing off all constitutional restraints,
E.L.u-ul E...nrIa In