Saint Mary's beacon., 1886-07-15
TINE lEss0H OF TINE WAR.
AN EDITORS ABLE EFFORT.

Il
vas the orator Of the day at Wash
ington and Lee University, on Com
mencemsnt. His address to the liter
airy societies was on The Lesson Of Our
Civil War" and in the course Of it he
said:
will it startle you to be told that
the germ OF discord, that riPened into
civil war after two generations had
nourished it, was planted by the two
most illustrious men Of our history?
They were George Washington and
Thomas Jefferson men who made the
grandest records Of unsullied patriot
ism, OF loftiest heroism, Of wisest
craftsmanship. They differed widely,
radically as to the true theory OF
popular government.
Had the Constitution been any
less a succession of compromises
1t would have been rejected -
and it was by the supreme necessity
OF cornproIaike. even to the extent of
ambiguous definition Of what later
proved to be most vital questions, that
an acceptable fundamental law was
framed. From the day of adoption
Of the Constitution and the organiza-
ton Of the Government the sovereignty
of the state as against the nation and
the sovereignty of the nation as against
the state were both taught with equal
ability and earnestness, and the high
warrant of the fundamental law was
claimed with equal positiveness by
di5puting statesmen.
SLAVERY NOT THE ISSUE.
You are often told that slavery
was the issue that plunged the North
and South into fratricidal conflict.
Slavery was not the source of the war.
Its interests happened to be most in
timately interviewer with the funda-
mental dispute that estranged the two
sections; but the slavery issue never
could have assumed disturbing pro-
portions had the founders of the Re-
pnblic clearly decided the supreme
question of the scope Of our nationali-
~. 1t was the broader and deeper
issue of the constitutional power of
state and nation that deied peaceful
adjustment. For three-quaIters of a
century the question had been asked
Are We a nation or a confederation at
will and it had been answered with
equal ability, integrity and patriot
ism. and in nearly equal numbers,
affirming each. What more beautiful
or attractive theory could be present
-! TO free people than the sovereign
" of the state II was the bulwark
ot safety against the despotism of
o"ntralized power, and it luickened
~vesy instinct and impulse Of free
people.
"l"u naturally ask was there no
middle ground on which the new ma
ton could have been founded No.
There WAS no middle ground then:
there is none now; there can be none
IN the future. The sovereignty of
the stat" made slaves property: the
territories were the common property
ut all, and equal rights for the North
erE and Southern property OF every
kind were demanded aud obtained.
Then came the logical demand, from
the new standpoint of the.sovereignty
oi the state, for the right Of transit in
I'll" free states, and finally came the
pred Scott decision. that crowned the
South with victory. II had section
ahzri freedom and nationalized
slavery.
WnT COMPROMISE WAS IMPOSSIBLE.
IN vain did sincere men plead for
compromise. Over and above all the
tollies of sectional disturbance were
the wisest and bravest men of both
sections, who saw and accepted the in-
eVitable, while reaselessly but hope
lessly striving 10 avert it.
The sovereignty Of the state then
summoned its last prerogative, TO sew
er the Union and end the pretense of
nationality. Peaceable dismember-
ment or the civil war; such was the
only choice presented, and civil war
was inevitable. Do yon inquire why
1t was inevitable Let me answer in
a single sentence. am sure that
peaceable disunion would have brought
anarchy to the North / believe y :,
sooner or later. and soon at thu Let b
1t would have brought anarchRur. :,
ubols co,,;,.r, Nal v
IA. u
"ltisareprosch TO American intel .,
gencr and herois,n to assume ths,
mer" sectional agitators could lea !,
I'll" most peace-loving, the most culiS !