Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1870-05-31
Barton, Tuesday, May 81, 1870.
Stephens History--SeCond Volume

sheets of Alex. III. Stephens econ
stitutional View of the War Between
the States" issued by the National
Publishing Company, of Philadelphia,
the first volume Of which was printed
some months since and is in our pos.
session. A good history of the eau,
ses-the incipient steps which led to
the war between the states, is one that
should be written, if it is not already
written, and should find its way into
the hands of every American. We
know Of no man more capable of wri.
ting the south side view of those eau
ses than the distinguished author Of
the volumes before US, and in a style
at once attractive, concise, clear, for
chile. A man of decided parts, lib
eral education, quick perceptions and
great nervous power-a member of
congress for a long time previous to
the secession of the south, and after
wards the vice president of the con.
fcderacy, his ability to write well and
his opportunities to learn the opin-
ions of of the men Of his own section
will be conceded, and we are happy
to say that he has given these views
in two volumes of rare worth. The
work is a political one, and not his
tory of battles and siegcs. As to
which side commenced the war we
give the authors view, as given on
pages 3j and 36, which we think are
a little curious, to say the least:
cit is fact that the first gun was fired
by the Confederates. 1t is a fact that Gen
eral Beauregard did, on the 18th of April
1861, lombard Fort Sumter, before any
blow had actually been struck by the Fed
eral authorities That is not disputed at
all. That is fact which have no dispo.
sition to erase or obliterate in any way
That is great truth which will live furey-
err. But did the firing Of the first gun, OF
the reduction of Fort Sumter inaugurate OF
begin the war? That is question to be
first solved, before we can agree upon the
fact as to who inaugurated the war; anC
in solving this question, you must allow mt
to say that in personal or national conflicts
it is not he who strikes the first blow, OF
fires the first gun that inaugurates or be-
gins the conflict. Hallam has we'll sale
that the dggreSsOr in war THAT is, ht
who begins it, is not the first who use
force, but the first who renders force nee
essary.'
Which side, according to this high au
thority, THAT only announces the common
sentiment of mankind, was the aggresso
in this instance? Which side was it tina
provoked and rendered the first blow nee
essary? The true answer to that question
will settle the fact as to which side began
the war.
| maintain that it was inaugurated an(
begun, though no blow had been struck
when the hostile fleet, styled the Relic
Squadron, with eleven ships carrying TIVE
hundred and eighty-hye guns and tw,
thousand four hundred men, was sent on
from New York and Norfolk, with order
from the authorities at Washington, to re
enforce Fort Sumter peaceably, if permit
ted but forcibly if they must
The war was then and there inaugurate
and begun by the authorities at Washing
ton General Beauregard did not ope
fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet wa
10 his knowledge, very near the harbor c
Charleston, and until he had inquired {
Major Anderson, in command of the For
whether he would engage to take no par
in the expected blow then coming dow
upon him from the approaching fleet
Francis w. Pickens, Governor Of Sout
Carolina, and General Beauregard, ha
both been notified that the feet was con
ing, and of its objects, by messenger froI
the authorities at Washington. This NJ
tice, however, was not given until it wa
near its destination. When Major Andel
son, therefore, would make no such prom
Use, il became necessary for General Beat
regard to strike the first blow as he did. y
From this it will be seen that Nj
Stephens considers the act of the Tn
ted States in sending a squadron 70
the relief of Fort SUMTER then mer
aced by the rebels, an act Of war, an
one which the government had no rigt
to make. Thus he says hostilitiC
were first commenced by the govern
mcnt. Who did Fort Sumter belon
to, we wonderful the United State
or to South Carolina? If to the Tn
ted States, then she had the right {
relieve it, and if to South Carolin
then we admit the premises of NJ
Stephens to be correct. At the tin
of the attack on Sumter it was garI
soned by the national-not state
troops. 1t always had been SO garl
soned. How came it to be thus ga
risoned? Was South Carolina a d
minion that ever had another flag W
wing over her forts and arsenals?
so she is to be praised for her loI
for5carance. The south always clai
cd that the government had no right
reinforce Sumter because it belong
to South Carolina, and was in Charlie
ton harbor. That was one of the
ira States Rights dogmas, which f
lowed out to its logical conclusiC
would make tie nation the creatu
OF the state-the lesser the contro
ing power. We admit with Halla
and with Stephens, that it is not
ways the one "that strikes the fiji
blow or fires the first gun that ina
gurates, or begins the conflict"
have no wish to dispute them in ord
to prove this portion Of the histo
false. Prove that fort Sumter q
the harbor it was in was the sole prC
erty Of South Carolina, and we "
acknowledge that the national COVE
ment was the aggressor and that
south was abused, and when that {
is admitted we must admit, too, t
no fort or arsenal situated within
borders of any state, is in its cont
which places the government with
the means of defence in case of "
and entirely at the mercy of
states.