The Placer herald., 1862-08-23
NUMBER 81.
[From the San Joaquin Republican,
A Question of Consistency.

different dates, the first endorsing the politi
cal opinions of Mr. Douglas, and the second
endorsing the resolutions of the Mcconnell
Convention of 1861, re affirmed by the late
Sacramento Convention. After quoting
these resolutions, the Union says: "How
Douglas Democrat can reconcile the approx.
al Of the sentiments contained in the above
resolutions with the principles advocated by
Stephen A. Douglas is more than we can
see." The fault is not in the fact, but in the
obliquty of the editors vision. None so
blind as those ho will not see" Tho reso-
lutions which are excepted are as follows:
Resolved, That we are opposed to the
employment Of force by the General Gov
ernment against the seceled States, for the
purpose of compelling obedience and SUBJ
mission 70 federal authority.
Resolved. That we are in favor of the
preservation of the Union upon consttu-
tional guarantees which will be acceptable
to both sections of the confederacy, but if
that desirable consummation be impossible
then we are in favor of the recognition of
| the independence Of the Confederates States,
and treaty of amity and peace between
them and the United States Government, as
the only alternative which will terminate
the horrors Of civil war, and bring back
peace and happiness to our distracted coun.
try.
Mr.. Douglas declared in his last speech
in the Senae-"War is dsunion," and he
never pretended, in any subsequent speech,
that the Union could be restored by force
During the lifetime of Mr.. Douglas "the
employment of force by the General Gov.
ernment against the seeded States for the
purpose of compelling obedience and sub.
mission to federal authority" was not con
tempIated. The call for $4,000 men could
not have been made with any view to co.
cree the entire seeded States, but merely to
defend the Capital from threatened invasion.
The President declared in his inaugural adj
dress that it was not the purpose of his adj
ministration to compel obedience and sub.
mission to federal authority, but on the con
trary, that where public sentiment was so
unanimous as to render the enforcement of
the federal laws mpracticable through the
constitutional mediums, he distinctly de-
claimed any intention of resorlng to force.
1t was under these circumstances, and in
View of these distinct declarations, that Mr..
Douglas connselled what every reasonable
man will now admit, the duty of sustaining
the government regardless of party admin
istelng the affairs Of that government. But
Mr.. Douglas never advised aggressive war
upon the constitutional rights of the north
or south. In the same speech in which he
called upon the people to defend their gov
ernment regardless of party platforms, he
declared that he would as readily resist every
Infringement OF the constitutional rights of
States as he ever did; and the last letter
ever written 10 his name, in reply to one
from Victor Hickox, Chairmgn Of the Dem
ocratic Central Committee of Illinois, in
which he explains that he did not mean to
advise an a andonment of principles, for, he
says: "If the Union is ever restored it
must be upon democratic principles"
These resolutions declare for preserving
the Union upon Constitutional guarant es,
to which the last official efforts of Mr.. Doug
las were especially directed against the com.
bined resistance of that party which the
Union now gives its support. If this is i'm.
possible, then the only alternatives, reasonI
ing from the declarations of Mr.. Douglas,
are, dissolution with war or dissolution with
out war. Thus it will be seen by the most
simple rules of logic, that these resolutions,
instead of conflicting with the declarations
of Mr.. Douglas, are in perfect consonance
with his views. And here we would ask
who are the most authentic exponents of
his senlments-his most trusted friends and
advisers in life and the executors OF his
fame, or his life long personal and political
! enemies and defamers? Richardson, Pugh,
Cox and three or four hundred thousand
voters in the North west represent one class,
the editor Of the Sacramento Union and the
aboilionsts of California the other.
1t is perfectly competent for any citizen to
discuss The policy of peace or war without
any imputation upon his loyalty. If one
party may deliberately prefer war and disu.
nion to compromise and concession, why
may not the other party prefer peace to
war which they believe cannot result in any
good to the country? That man is incapa'
ble of reasoning from cause to effect who
believes that the Union as it was can be re-
stored by the simple exercise of power, that
a free government can be maintained with
out the consent of the governed; that the
Constitutional guarantees to the States can
be preserved and enforced in those States
where the entire electors are opposed to
them; that civil government can be admin
isered 10y military rule and personal rights
not infracted. This war must have one OF
three purposes: lst, it may be war for
redress of grievances growing out of the at
tack upon Fort Sumpter and other aggres.
sive acts; in which case the parties in offence
having been recognized as belligerents and
treated as such according to the laws of ma.
tions, it must be terminated by treaty
agreement in which States may or may not
be restored to the Union as they may may
not consent to the terms. Unless the SUBJ
mission is voluntary, there is no restoration
of the Union. 81, 1t may be war for the