The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1884-08-17

SECOND ARTICLE.

uIscuSs INC cohstltutlonal questions whlch lay
nt the root OF our civil war IL his ability tn dis
tnguish tho view taken In Mr.. Buchanan's
message OF Dec. .. 1860. from tho attitude as
sumed by Mr.. Lincoln In his inaugural address
OF March 4. 1861. II We bring togsther ell tho
Ycferonces to those momentous documents In
JTeniy Years oJ Congress. We shall 500 that. not
withdrawing one casual nisstatement, Mr..
BLAINE has accurately defined their premises
and declared their purport. On page $50 he
erronoously says that Mr.. Buchanan had adj
mittcd the RICH: OF secession while denying the
wisdom OF It's exercise" But that this IL a
mere slip OF tho pom Ia made plain by compar-
ing this inndvertont allusion with tho dalibsr-
ate analysis on pages 225 22s OF the positions
taken By the message OF Dec. g.
As . matter OF fact the postulatss afFrmsd
by the two Presidents in these pregnant state
papers were substantially the same. whereas
there was the broadest difference between the
dauntless logic with which Mr.. Lincoln drew a
necessary inference and the tlnidity with
which Mr.. Buchanan announced conclusion
absolutely Inconsistent with his own premises.
Tho absence OF oosent reasoning on Mr.. Bn.
chanan's part will be made palpabls by glancing
at the quito opposite ground taken by the do.
fenders OF secossion. and the indisputable
corollary which they drew from It. For our
selves We adhsre-not the less firmly because
the grim nssizs OF war has forever removed
the controversy from the sphere Of practical
politics--to that conception OF the Federal
bond which was formed by strict con.
structionists OF the Constitution. the con-
oSption enunciatsd In the Kentucky and Vir-
EiniA resolutions. and In the speeches OF Mr.
Calhoun and which was propoundsd. though
less boldly. In the declarations Of the Hartford
Convention and the resolutions passed by the
Massachusetts Legislature In 1874. We hold
that in vithd mi nU Tynin tho Nam H.
ern States were exercising. not right OF revo-
luton. but right Of secession that this right
WAS Inherent In the States which had volun-
tarily and consecutively accedsd to the COM
pact embodied In our organic law But II this
right was inherent and unalienatsd 1t follows
that the utterly contradictory right OF coercion
on the part Of the general Government WAS In.
admissible. The coexistsnce OF such mutually
inconsistent rights 10 simply unthinkabs.
The Southern States were therefore. justified
In resuming that part OF sovereignty which
they had delegated for certain purposes. and
the war for tho Union was nothing moro or
less than q war for conquest
These opinions. which at one time were
shared by oil strict constructionists. and in
which the Federallsts themselves. when out OF
temper with the general a. government more than
once Rcquiesced are at least Ineligible They
are not self-contradictory. and the premises.
ifaccepted. lead irresistibly to the conclusion.
Equally comprehensive and incontrovertibls
was the position taken by Mr. Lincoln. and
distinctly indicated between the lines OF his
wistful and conciliatory inaugural address.
Mr.. Lincoln refused to recognizes any right OF
secession. and this refusal forced him to assert
for the central Government an indefeRsible
right OF enforcing obedience to the Federal laws
not only upon all individuals but also on recall
citrant States. It mattered not that the
methods and instruments Of such enforcement
were not enumerated In the Constitution: the
right to invoke all ncedful processes OF coor.
cion was involved In tho fundamental a.
sumption.
Mr.. Buchanan was by no means 50 cogent
reasoner as Mr.. Calhoun on the one hand. or
Mr.. Lincoln ON the other. His curiously in
consequent propositions are firmly. though
kindly. arragned by Mr. Blaine. Thus we read
on page OCT that Mr.. Buchanan proceeded to
argue ably and earnestly against the assump-
ton BY any state OF On Inherent right to secede
from the Government at Its own will and
pleasure. But he utterly destroyed the force
OF his reasoning by declaring that after much
serious reflection he had arrived at the conclu-
sion that no power has been delegated to Con-
gress. or to any other department Of the Fed
eral Government. to coerce Q State Into sub
mission which is attempting to withdraw. or
has actually withdrawn. from the Union. -
Tho fatal admission was thus evolved from tho
mind OF the President that any State which
thought Itself aggrieved and could not secure
tho concessions demanded might bring the
Government down In ruins The power to
destroy was in the State. The power to pre-
serve was not In the nation. Tho President
apparently failed to see that II tho nation could
not be preserved by force. It's legal capacity for
existence was dependent upon the concurrlng
and continuing will and pleasure OF all the In
dividunl States"
l!r Elaine might have added that Mr.
Buchanan's substitute for tho right OF seces-
sion. his concession. namely. OF the right Of
revolution. should have logically carried with
1t an assertion Of the right OF resistance to re-
volt. Neither Mr. Lincoln nor Mr.. Blaine nor
any other American citizen would deny the ex-
istence OF an abstract right Of revolution. but
1t should be obvious that such right Is insep-
arabic from its converse. the right Of subduing
an insurrection by force since by its very def
milton 1t implies an antaVonism OF views and
claims for whose settlement pacific means
OF adjudication are no longer available
and which must. therefore, be referred 10 the
nrbitrament OF arms. Revolution Is. in other
words. a challenge to war, and II the South
had no better ground on which to justify with
drawal than that taken BY the American colo
MES In l776. tho States still loyal to the Union
would have been grossly recreant to duty. nay
more they would have pleaded guilty to the
Sharge Of rank injustice In the past. had they
NO vigorously striven to put the rebellion
aowA. Mr.. Buchanan's strange Inconsistency
hconceung the right Of revolution. while dis
claiming on tho part OF the Federal Govern
n.enl any pIwer 1T supervising the revolt.
.hs So uoSc .a s sta@ secret conviction th
thata nad no moral warrant for withdrawing
rupture which its own intoleraLle conduct
I'D provoked.
M. Blaine hlls us that after the Presi-
uent' argument in justification OF u revolu.
.lohari fracture. a. eontradstnguished
from = constitutional departure. through
out the south. The right OF secession WA
abandoned BY large class and the right
OF revolution substituted" But the most
influential and far. seeing Southarn IaaLurs