The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-07-07
"UNDER WHICH KING2n


partly published, history of our late un-
pleasantness, which he entities "The War
Between the States" Mr.. Stephens has lust
felt impelled to write letter explaining away
the major propositions of his book. 1t
strikes us that Mr. Stephens might have wisely
refrained from writing his book and thus
spared himself the annoyance of writing his
letter. But our readers shall judge for them
selves
Mr.. Stephens theory is that the Union was
a mere league of sovereign powers, and of
course dissoluble at the pleasure of those
powers respectively-of a minority, or, in
fact, of any one of them, so far as that one is
concerned. And he quotes sundry conspicuous
Republicans-among them Abraham Lincoln
Benjam +. Wade, and Horace Greeley-as
having, at some time, favored this view
Mr.. Stephens is utterly mistaken. Leaving
others to speak for themselves. we can assure
him that Horace Greeley never, at any mo-
ment of his life, imagined that single State,
or dozen States, could rightfully dissolve
the Union. The doctrine of Horace Greeley,
which Mr.. Stephens has confounded with
State sovereignty, is that of popular sove-
reignty, or the right of a people to recast or
modify their political institutions and rela-
tions-the right set forth by Thomas Jeffer-
son in the Declaration of American lndepen-
dence, as follows
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain lnalienable rights tnat
among these life, liberty and the pursuit OF hap
piness that to secure these rights governments are
Instituted among men, deriving their Just powers
any form of Government becomes destructive OF
these ends 1t is the right OF the People TO alter or
abolish it, and to institute new government, laying
Its foundation such principles, and organizing its
powers in such formsas to them shall seem most
likely to effect their safety and happiness"
This doctrine of JEFF erson's we have ever
IL. hau hal /
reads The same is true, we presume, of
Messrs. Lincoln, Wade, and other Republi-
cans. Mr.. Stephens may say it justiies the
so-called secession of the South; we think
| differently. We hold that secession the work
| of violent, subversive, bullying, terrorizing
minority, overawing and sitting the voice OF
decided majority of the Southern people.
The facts which Justify this conclusion are
| embodied in 1.-The American Conflict, more
especially in Vol. 1, chap. xii According
to Mr.. Stephens conception, majority OF
the people of Delaware, consisting of less
than 100, 900 persons, might lawfully dissolve
the Union, but the whole population of New
York south of the Highlands--at leas
1,5O0, 900 in number-could do nothing of the
kind Mr.. Stephens may possibly be the
true doctrine, but it certainly never was ours
nor of any Republican so far as we know
The right we affirm is not based on the Fede
raj Constitution, but is before and above any
and all Constitutions.
Mr. Stephens in his letter or codicil says:-
"When stated that secession had been abandone
by the people OF the Southern States, meant al
that sald and uttered nothing but the truth. 1t
abandonment was accepted in good faith as one 0
the results of the war; 1t is no longer looked to II
any contingency a practical remedy or checl
against any usurpations or abuses OF power on tn
part OF the Federal Government. This abandon
! ment on their part has been manifested in ever
form in which public well private homo
can be pledged All the States in their convention
have, without equiyocaton, given 1t an emphati
abandonment. Even the Southern Generals in tn
New York Convention last year, to whom such Al
unkind allusiOn Is made by Judge Nicholas, CAV
their pledged honor to this abandonment by unani
mOusly sustaining the platform Of principles the
announced. Whether they were 'unpardoned' o
not, their individual honor and integrity as me
were certainly untarnished and unsullied, far be
yond the reach OF all impeachment or reproach. Thi
ding OF Judge Nicholas 'at the Southern General
was, as IL seems TO me, no less unkind than unjust
Why he should have applied to them the eplthet {
'unpardoned know not, Tor, II am correct IN M
recollection, the imputation Is utterly without i0uI
dation in fact.
mo utterance of mine, therefore, presents to tn
people Of the North or South the question OF seceS
sion as living issue. This is but the work OF lima
gination ON the part OF Judge Nicholas. | oppose
il as an expedient remedy at the time it was re
sorted to, though believed 1t to be rightful one
And though believe It to be the rightful one, di
not believe 1t to be the only one, much less tn
surest or the best one then thought, and sti
think, that there We're other remedies much moi
practicable and eXpedient"
1t seems to us that Mr.. Stephens her
repeats his old blunder, and that it is on
which threatens to be mischievous. Nj
Stephens in 1860 believed secession rightfl
but inexpedient. He now says the South On
South has abandoned secession-that it is n
longer regarded by her as practical remed
for Federal abuses and usurpations. W
| accept this statement as true of course, SO fl
, as Mr.. Stephens is concerned Others wi
{ speak for themselves. But consider
= l. The Federal Constitution, as original
ratified, either authorized State secession
/ it did not. Mr.. Stephens says it did
9 IT. If it ecer authorized that resort, it no
5 authorizes it, for no amendment since adopte
/ has taken from the States the right to seced'