National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-05-06
DISQUALIFICATION of observation-disclosures

Disqualification OF Ex-Confcderates.
II is to be regretted that anything
should cause discussion of the motives
which governed the Unionists and con-
federates, respectively, in the civil war,
for the reason that such discussion always
involves misuse of terms. AS TO who
was right and who was wrong, the simple
answer is that each man did right who
obeyed his honest convictions of duty.
As in the family the father and mother
might give conflicting commands to
children, SO in the Nation Federal and
State authority might conflict and each
command obedience of the dual
citizen. Who shall say that Cal
houn was insincere in his profess
sion of belief that the States were
sovereign from the date of their indie
pendence from Great Britain, and that
they could withdraw from what he de-
clared was only league of small nations,
just as a nation can abrogate a treaty
which is found to be injurious? Who
shall say that Webster was not sincere in
his profession of belief that the Constitu-
ton of the United States created an in
dissoluble nation by the consent of the
people of the States, and that resistance
to its authority was treason? This ques-
ton was debated from the beginning.
Mr.. Webster said its settlement depended
on the question of whether the States
had, in their sovereign capacity, "ac-
coded" to the Union. If they had they
could secede. If, on the contrary, the
people of the States had merged them
seIrGs into q nation by their free will,
and had not simply spoken for indie
pendent States forming mere alli-
ance, then q Nation had been formed
which was absolute within the limits of
authority marked out in its Constitution.
In l79S-'99, and in 1S30-'31 the extreme
state sovereignty view was the watch
word of a party. In the first struggle
Jefferson represented it and was chosen
President. In the second, Calhoun and the
nulliiiers went down under the National
party led by President Jackson. The
school of secessionists grew and hourished
after that. They made arguments which
satisfied themselves, and generation
came up ready to fight for it. But be-
cause State sovereignty theorists believed
they had d right to dismember the Ma
ton, it did not follow that they were to
be allowed to do so. The Nationalist as
honestly believed that no State authority
could absolve man from his allegiance,
or make it anything less than treason
for II citizen to levy war upon the
United States or lend aid and comfort
to the enemy. And so the secessionists
rebelled and were overcome. In the
time of the conflict bitter words were
spoken, and deadly hatred dwelt in
mems hearts. But il is more than seven
teen years since Grant refused to take
Lees sword with his surrender, and why
should we not speak calmly of each other.
Why should it be deemed necessary to
the happiness of either side that the
other should conform to its opinion?
How can men change their opinions eX-
cept by being convinced of error? 1t is
enough to know that no devotee of the
doctrine of State sovereignty will ever
again seek to enforce his opinion by
violence. The country is entitled to
be assured of that. We liked what
Senator Hawley said in the debate
on the proposition to remove dis
qualification of confederates for Army
service, which was that while the dis
qualification should not be removed by
the Congress on any such ground as
would imply doubt of the righteousness
of the Union cause, it might be removed
because the lapse of time had made it
unnecessary.
The great debate on the right of seces-
sion was closed by the sword and decided
for the Union. No confederate will object
to subscribing to that view or to placing
it in the Constitution. This ought to be
done. Then there would be no need of
disqualifying clauses, but all would be
honorably and plainly agreed as to ting;
future. The American people need, Uhly
to be bound by willing Submission to ex-
listing laws and a. clear understanding OF
national. authority. 1t is not wise to keep
/ the lines drawn on account of what is
past. All are equals, and in each politi-
cal party are Unionists and confederates.
1t will be fortunate if language can
be found in which all can concur to
make future paramount allegiance to the
Nation the qualification for service in the
Army instead of conduct in the past.
Such is the real spirit of that clause OF
the fourteenth amendment which gives
Congress the power to remove disabilities