The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1866-04-24


have been only half done. He therefore had
a right-ay, sir, II was his imperative duty
to deal directly with the unarmed rebels as
well as with their military forces, which he
could do both as military commander and as
holding the power to pardon. ...r ....... ..
But there are some who maintain that the
States, as bodies polite, In their State capac-
ity waged this war upon the Government.
Without admitting or denying the assump-
ton, grant, for the sake Of the argument,
that to be So what power and duty would,
in that view Of the case, be imposed upon
the President by law of CongressI ] answer,
TO deal with the States as belligerents.
If the States, as such, were in rebellion and
waging war against the United States, then,
Of course, the law authorizing the President
TO prosecute the war against the rebellion, Of
necessity authorized the President TO prose-
cute the war against the States; and, as he
was not authorized to disband the army until
the war was over, and as the war could not
be over until the States submitted TO the
conditions of peace, the President had the
power and it became his duty to deal directly
with the States upon the terms and condi-
tons Of peace. 1t was Just as much neces-
sity for him TO know that the States submit
ted and accepted the terms Of peace, as that
their armies should surrender, before he dis
banded the Army of the United States. The
object OF all legitimate war is to conquer q
peace.
If the States, as such, were at war against
the United States, the capture Of an army
would not end the war so long as they should
remain hostile. The army was to be reduced
when organized resistance" should no longer
exist So long as organized States are at
war against the Government, organized re-
sistance does exist, and he could not disband
the army. Had he Immediately upon the
surrender of the armed forces dsbanded our
army, leaving the States still at war, there
would be no peace, and could be no peace;
and peace was to be condition precedent to
hi disarmament of the army. All the writer's
on the law of nations concur that the only
lawful purpose Of war is peace. The Presi-
dent, therefore, being authorized by law to
make peace, was empowered to deal with all
the parties at war against the United States,
namely, with the rebel army; with all the
rebel insurgents, whether they are to be re-
garded as acting in their individual capacity,
or in their organized political capacity as the
people Of State.
now inquire, what must be the terms and
conditions Of peace in order to put an end
to civil war in these United States / an
swer, the Constitution Of the United States
is the paramount and indissolube bond of
union and relationship and peace among the
several States. An attempt to overthrow
that is civil war. Submission to that is
peace. Therefore, neither the President, nor
Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor oil
put together, can make any other treaty Of
peace or bond Of relationship among the
States. Nothing short Of successful revolu-
ton, or of decision of the sovereign peo-
pie Of the United States to amend that Con-
stitution, can change the relationship between
the States one jot or title. Though men
and parties may change, the Constitution, as
the basis of that relationship in this Union,
will remain perpetual.
What terms had the President right to
demand of these States, or of their people,
as conditions precedent TO peace and the
withdrawal of the Army?
First, and before all, and as the basis of
ALL unqualified submission to the COnstitu-
ton of the United States, and all laws of
Congress passed in pursuance thereof
Second the annulling of all acts, laws, and
proceedings by which the States made or
prosecuted war against the United States,
Including the rebel debt
Third, acquescencc in the situation which
the war has brought upon them, including
the abolition of slavery, for and on account
of which they made the war; for the sincerity
of such acquiescence, and as the supreme
test of its good faith, the adoption of the
constitutional amendment by which slavery,
the cause of the war, is surrendered ana
made impossible, and liberty made sure, by
being placed under the guardianship of Con
grcss in every State and Territory forever.
t,nl - LII.
political duties, upon those terms, as States
in the Union.
These ore the conditions, in substance,
upon which President Lincoln almost three
years ago announced to the people of these
States the terms of pacifcation to which he
pledged the support Of the Executive Gov
eminent.
These are the substance of the terms offered
by President johnson.
Several Of these States, or the people Of
several States, have accepted them, and offer
now to resume all their political duties as
States in this Union, and practically enjoy
their rights as such. Shall we allow them to
do so?
If these terms have been accepted by these
States, or the people of these States, in good
faith, is not the faith of this nation pledged ?
Just as much pledged as by the terms con-
taiued in the surrender of their armies?
1t is not a sufficient answer to say, this
Congress is not bound by the acts of preced-
ing Congresses, and therefore we can pass
laws requiring the President to impose other
and new terms Of pacifcaton not required
by preceding Congresses. Technically that
may be urged; bat it will not do for great
nation, dealing with fallen enemy after he
has, surrendered, to impose new and other
Terms. Had we been fighting with any for
eign Power, the treaty made by the President
would have been most scrapulously kept.
As between and among the States, the Con
stitution-whiCh is the treaty Of peace, and
more than treaty, which forms perfect
Union, and makes the States one family-is
certainly to be regarded with equal sacredness
and validity on our part, when after civil war
peace is made, and offending citizen or State
makes submission in good faith, and seeks to
renew allegiance. Nothing is more clear than
that we have made no conquest of these
States. We hold them only by virtue of our
original right us States under the Consttu-
ton.
But the question is sometimes put, by what
power then, il these States are still in the
Union, does the President appoint these pro-
visional or military Governors? That ques-