The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-12-26
rhe Rebellion and slate Status.

speech His entire communication is longer
than we can conveniently find room ior, OuC
we very willingly give such portions OF u aS
ara essential TO the discussion in hand. lie
says:-
Tn voyr comments upon the quotation you make
from his mt Cowan's) speech you appear to have
loaf sight entirely of his real position; and in your
illustrations to prove its falacY you most un VII
tingiy give strength to his argument You start out
with the proposition, "that the assumption that lies
at the bottom of all his aaces is that State can
not really do what it cannot legally do." Now, sup
pose ne had laid down the legal postulate that
cornoaton is strictly limited to those poTers which
are speoially conferred upon it, and any attempt to
axarcise any powers outside those limits would
make their exercise null and void; or suppo ose he
had said, "tbat any acts of a State, who, wi ,hout
ronaent of Congress, kept troops or ships OF war
in time of peace entered into any agreement or
compact with another State or foreign power, or
engaged in war, unless invaded, or in imminent
danger thereof as will not admit of delay"-that
all such acts would be void. Do you doubt he truth
Of either of these pcsitionsf Are theynot axiom
atict And yet this is just what Senator Cowan
asserted. No more no less, Your illustrations won
have the same application answer to the above
postuates in to the postuate taken by Sena-
tor Cowan The logic of his argumenti is simply that,
notwithstanding the ordinances OF secession, the
in the Union, dsorganized by the act OF their
people, who attempted 10 maintain the ordinances
of secession but that the State not in fault tor
the reason that the ofense was not committed by
the State. The people who coiuntdrily concurred
In the act were rebels against The Government OF
the United States and punishable as such none the
less, because they usurped also the authority
of the State.
Our chief ground of criticism upon Mr..
A. 1, H. l. l.
two precisely antagonistic positions; first.
maintaining that the Rebellion was the work
of individuals and not OF the States, and next,
that It was the work of the States and not Of
individuals. When he wished to relieve the
States, in their corporate capacity, from all
responsibility for the Rebellion, he maintained
that che States could not rebel but that it was
the mere personal affair of their inhabitants
When he wished to save the Rebel inhabitants
OF the States from the pains and penalties of
treason, he maintained that they had not con-
mitted treason, because, in waging war
against the Union, they had done so in ODE.
dience to their States. 1t was this juggle of
hiding the responsibility OF the State behind
the people, and the guilt of the people behind
the State, for the purpose of screening both
from all the consequences OF the Rebellion
that we denominated "poiitical thimble-
rigging" Our correspondent in his defense
of Mr.. Cowan conveniently overlooks this
point.
Our correspondent seems to us to have
fallen into the same fallacy that we ascribed
to the gentleman whom he assumes to defend
Despite the ordinances of secession and ether
revolutionary acts, he affirms that tt State
was without fault, "for the reason that the
ofense was not committed by the State"
Now, in lUhdt sense was it not committed by
the State? Is it denied that the State of
South Carolina, for instance, as a corporate
political entity, passed an ordinance of seces-
sion, confederated with several other States,
raised armies, made war, etc.P 1t cannot be
denied, except upon the assumption that
these acts being "void," were not "com-
mitted" by the State; and that involves the
identical tallacy which was originally ex-
posed, viz, that State cannot really do that
which it cannot legally do.
Our correspondent seems to think that
much is gained by calling the rebellious and
revolutionary acts of the Southern States
act that has not in fact been committedP
If so, then it is not an act at all. A "void"
act is simply one that has no legal or binding
force. Itlacks the element of pOsitiue legality.
An illegal act is one that is contrary to
law. All illegal acts are void, but not all void
acts are illegal. Now, the revolutionary
acts of the Southern States, such as their
ordinances of secession, their formation of
the so-called Confederacy, their raising of
armies, and their waging war against the
Union were not only "Uoid"-that is desti-
tute Of positive legality-but they were much
more; they were in the highest degree
ilIegal- being contrary to, and forbidden by
the great organic law Of the nation, the
Constitution. aar.raf
To hold, therefore, that the States were
"not in fault" because their rebellious acts
were void acts, when they were also much
more than void, Is illogical and absurd. The
very fact that these acts were not only with
out legal sanction, but in the highest degree
illegal and revolutionary, constituted the
nations great warrant for prosecuting the war,
One of the greatest elements of strength in
the Rebellion was that it was not a mere
insurrection, not mere sporadic and miscal-
Ianeous movement of the people outside ol
their civil organizations, but that it was
organized and prosecuted by the States as
States, in their corporate, political capacity
By means Of this they gave their movement
n