Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1865-1869, 1865-05-20

A prominent difficulty in the way of re-
cOnciling some portion Of the Southern peo-
pie to the failure of the Disunion scheme,
is their conviction that the South was en-
titled to independence, as an abstract right.
They believe that the North, in attempting
TO deprive them of the exercise Of this as
serted right, violated a fundamental princi-
pie of human liberty, and in forcing them
back to nationality from which they
wished to be separated, have inflicted upon
them a wrong that forbids any utilization be-
tween them.
The people who thus think and speak are
influenced by their feelings, not by their
judgment. Ii they reason at all, they do so
in an ez parts manner. The very ground
work Of their position is a long cherished
prejudice against the North an its inStitu-
tiOns, and We all know that prejudice warps
the Judgment, and often leads to erroneous
conclusions.
Until this sectional prejudice is discarded
and a more catholic spirit prevails, it will be
impossible to convince the class referred to
that independence is neither an inalienable
right OF the South, nor the basis OF its lib
erty or prosperity. Many Of those most
anxious for separation from the North, in
different whether adversely or prosperity
followed, so that independence was secured,
forgot, in their eagerneSS to cut loose from
the yankees" that the North had some in-
Jerest in the matter. Any one who will take
the trouble to reflect upon the consequences
of DisuniOn will perceive that the North had
substantial reasons for resisting the efforts
of the South TO disrupt the Union.
The sentiment OF attachment TO the Union
was undoubtedly strong in the Northern
mind; and it became q potent element OF
success in the war for the preservation OF
the Union. \ just construction Of the Con-
stitution sustained the Government in its
efforts to maintain the supremacy OF the
National authority. But apart from senti-
mental patriotism, and the organic law Of the
land, there VS. = supreme Ter which impel-
Ted the North 10 take care Of It's own safety
and welfare without doing Injury TO the
South, but rather, as We believe, restraining
the South from involving both sections in a
common ruin.
The fabric Of the Union may be not inapt.
IL compared TO au edifce erected on coll
umns. pl&ced in their positions by builders
who united in the erection Of the edifce.-
They were designed to De permanent. Az
ter awhile some of the builders become Of
tended with their associates, and resolve to
remove their columns with the view OF erect
ing another edifce fox themselves, although
in attempting TO do 50 they bring down the
superstructure upon friend AID Zoe. Would
it be surprising, in a case Of this kind, il the
effort to remove the columns were re-
sisted
The North believed that "in union there
IS strength that ga house divided against
itself viii fall" that a dissolution Of the
Union would reduce us 10 the hapless con-
dition Of Mexico: lead 70 an interminable
bOSder warfare; subject Us TO the insults and
assaults OF foreign powers, PROSTATE our
prosperity, extmguish the traditional and
historic glories OF our common country, and
inaict irretrievable ruin upon every interest.
Hence, we conclude that the South did not
have the ''inalien1ble right" TO destroy the
Nation, nor can it be demonstrated that
Southern independence would have secured
Southern happiness and prosperity.
Only those who. cannot or will not concur
IN this opinion VIII fail or refuse to join in
the effort to re-establish hstnOny and amity
throughout the country.