Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1865-11-24
HON. ISAAC +. RBDFlELD ON THE
RECONSTRUCTION QUESTION.

| iV-oiBhhNatlOh OF reoel states ana tbe recon-
structon Of the Union, by Hon. Isaac +. Red
field, late Chief Justice Of Vermont We had
intended to publish this document in full, as
the production Of a distinguished lawyer and
judge, whose political proclivities have been
Democratic, and com equently favorable to
State right doctrines, which have been unduly
exalted by the Democracy at the expense
OF the constitutional supremacy OF the nation
al government aud the integrity Of the Union.
! While it is true that out Of and for slavery
grew the rebellion, it is also true that II It
bad not been for the doctrine of State Rights,
inculcated by Calhoun, adopted by the south,
and countenanced in latter days by the De-
mocracy Of the North against the warnings Of
/ Livingston and Jackson on the Democratic
side and Webster on the other, there could
have been no rebellion. Buchanan expressed
only the prevailing idea of his party, when be
/ It'd Congress that it and he had no pot0sr to
prevent disunion by force and he did moth
ing to prevent it; nothing to preserve the
Government and unity Of the nation. That
ted in but it was the democracy of that day.
Now that the battle has been fought and the
victory over rebellion won, II is interesting
to see the effect upon intelligent and patriot
ic Democrats and more interesting still to
see upon what ground they will place the re-
constructed Union, and how preserve it in
the future from the horrors Of disunion and
civil war. We regard the views Of such men
as Judge ked6eld with more than ordinary
interest, and are better pleased to see them
improving upon the errors Of the past than
we would be at even ADLER arguments from
men who were never in danger Of mistake
In saying this we mean no reflection on Judge
Red6eld We doubt il he was ever widely
wrong but his party was, and so were most
Of its leading men. Had we not gone to the
Office one morning and found that our COM
positors had forestalled us by giving the giss
OF the most important part Of the letter, we
should have published it in full. As it is,
we propose now to state the substance of it
as briefly as we can.
Judge Redfeli puts the case as a lawyer,
and considers war as an action in a tribunal
having complete jurs dietion Of questions be-
tween nations, or parts of nations, parties to
the war and the results as the judgment Of
that tribunal upon the case. This judgment
concludes Of course all the issues in the case.
Now for the judgment in this particular case.
The most important Of the issues involved,
says the Judge. was " in regard to the para
mount sovereignty Of the nation, and the
right to vindicste that sovereignty by force Of
arms against all sggressors. as we'll from
within as without. We think, then, that the
National Government may fairly claim. agsins,
those engaged in the rebellion, that the result
has established forever their right to a para
mount sovereignty, and to vindicate the same
by force"
As to the states, it " nquestionably leaves
them in a subordinate position. But that is
precisely the position in which they are plac-
ed by the constitution. The very fact Of Civ
ing the national tribunals the supreme jutis-
diction in all questions affecting the relations
of the states to the national government, and
supervisory power over the State courts,
upon all those questions, by inevitable conse-
qaence, made the nation supreme and the
states subordinate" Thus the Judge merei-
lessly cuts the root of State-rghts democracy;
and right we'll it gave us treason, war, de-
vast,tion, death.
Now as to the treatment # the rebellous
states, They have not rebelled, says the
Judge, as states or political corporations
The acts OF secession and war, and conse-
qaenty treason, though done in the name Of
the states, were the unlawful acts Of the per-
sons perpetrating them, and not binding up
on any body else. The perpetrators Of these
crimes may be punished, but only these, not
their states. or the people of the states who
were really innocent because as loyal as they
could be, and they would have been perfectly
loyal il the United States had protected them.
So he concludes that these constructively
loyal people are still entitled to all their state
aud national rights, "toith only indispensable
exceptions"
The argument on this point is doubtless in
teresting to lawyers but when the ruling
power Of state has actually threatened and
almost effected the ruin of the nation, il is
not only wise but absolutely necessary to pre-
vent a repetition of the crime, even if be at
the expense Of some of the privileges and
powers permitted when the state was en-
urely loyal. The truly innocent may have to
suffer somewhat for the future safety of the
nation. That must be paramount. This, in
a strong Western phrase, is horse sense
plain not only to human understanding, but
to the instinct of brute. Our learned Judge
seems to appreciate this in some of his in
dispensable exceptions" as follows;
L. 1t seems to us that the national gov
eminent may fairly claim that the war has
determined the truth, that slavery is incom-
patible with the successful operation of our
complicated form OF government. We think
] than that he NATHAN fais 70