New-York tribune., 1896-11-22

STATES From Their Declaration OF lh4,- 4
pendcnce TO the Close of Their civil war. Ny ny
s;coren Ticknor Curtis In Two Volumes. Vol
H. Edited by Joseph Culbertson Clayton fP'
K, 1S Harper Bros
II was a remark of Mr.. Curtis late IN lie
that he belonged to no political party. This vol
ume shows where his preferences lay when
such questions were raised as those of the Re
construction period the Electoral Commission
and Of the Emancipation era. None of the mod
ern parties of the United States occupied a posi-
ton where he cared to stand. He was nearer to
the Whigs and Democrats Of old times than to
any political organism of the last third or
century. His voice Is the voice OF tradition from
the Age of Compromise. the age OF Webster ana
Clay. of Jackson and Calhoun. the golden age
of lawyers in the public life Of the Nation, IN
contrast to the present, which viii, perhaps
some day be looked back upon as the golden age
Of the newspaper. That age was noteworthy for
It's defects as we'll its merits. 1t has been
the fashion since the war to d ecry 1t as a time
when public men sacrificed honesty to perpet-
uate abuses and TO avoid a conflict which they
dreaded Mr.. Curtiss work casts a different
light upon affairs that are now beyond the mem
ory Of most men. He was often more Of an ad-
vocate than historian. But he was an advocate
who availed himself of subterfuges. He
stood between the two extreme factions in all
the Constitutional controversies OF his day. He
saw no question near or remote which. in his
opinion, beyond the scope of the Consttu-
ton. There was no higher law" for him and
no Inevitable conflict" 1t is necessary TO re-
member these things IN order to understand
why he shared so little the anmosities of the
period. and why in the heat of the war he had
to endure being called a traitor to his country.
He was neither a Nationalist nor a State Rights
man in any extreme seDse. The Virginia and
Kentucky Resolutions Of 179S are as far from
having his approval as the Congressional Plan
Of Reconstruction after the Civil War. The reso-
lutions he holds, made the doctrine Of secession
possible. while the Plan of Reconstruction left
the States without any defence against the power
Of the general Government. Apparently the key
to his position lies in the fact that he denies to
the people of the United States. as a whole. any
legal existence within the view of the COnstitu-
tion or its makers. 1t not this people, but
the people of the States separate political
ganisms, that accepted the Constitution. Here.
also, he makes another distinction. II it was the
people of the States who accepted the Consttu-
ton. then 1t was not the States themselves that
accepted it. They stand to each other they
have always done, with the exception that certain
powers have been taken away from them to en-
dow the Government of the Nation. Historically
general Government the creations of the popular
will; but practically they are subservient to the
popular will. just as the National system itself
is. In the midst of all the noises Of war; when.
In accordance With the Roman saying. the laws
were silent. 1t is wonder that NJ. Curtis
sometimes met with disapproval When people
would ever be put down. he was already discuss
ing with a DreSciance that seemed almost irOni-
cal, the question of reconstruction. But he
perfectly serious He had inherited a profound
reverence for the Constitution. and it char
acteristc Of him and the like Of him 10 cry out
against, even II they could not prevent. tres
pass upon the letter or the spirit OF instrument
which has been praised the world the
most perfect legal achievement in the history Of
mankind Ii Is not too much TO say that, If ever
another sectional conflict occurs in the United
States the mistakes which he deprecate ted will not
be made. 1t has been discovered that even
can be made in defence of the general Govern
ment without violating the details of the Consti-
tuition. There were two important conceptions
OF the statesmen and soldiers who ruled things
before the which have stood the test Of the
bitterest experience. One of these was that re-
bellion in a country like the United States must
be squeezed to death. as an anaconda squeezes its
victim. This was General Scotts idea and IL you
study the military history Of the war YOU will
see that "Old Fuss and Feathers expert
in grand strategy; in the outcome the forces Of
the so-called Confederacy simply squeezed
out of existence The other idea was the one
which President Lincoln quietly acted on. but
which President Buchanan made an excuse for
inaction--that a State cannot he coerced under
the Constitution. but that It's population can
is any excuse in the form Of persistent violation
of National law. That to say, the individual
citizen. over and above his duty to his own State,
has a duty to the Union of States which he ig
nores at his peril Under the Constitution
the United States have no right TO set guard
over a State Legislature or TO dictate IT'S enact
rnents they have no right to interfere with the
State Executive or Judiciary; but when an nsur-
gent body in a State fires fort belonging to
the United States or even stops a railroad train
with the mails IN charge Of the National author-
ties then the question ia one between the gem
eral Government: and men who have abandoned
the local protectorate under which they are sup
posed to live.
Constitutionally the declaration OF war on
the part Of the rebels In 1861 was according
to Mr. Curtis. very simple thing. The ques-
ton was merely whether any parties to con-
tract can break 1t without the consent OF all
the parties The rebeilious population aggra-
waited the question by taking possession or
National property. Naturally man will strug-
gle to the last for the deeds to his own land. and
he could not expect a political corporation to
do less This explanation Of the debate with
muskets and artillery in the sixties will not
satisfy most people There are psychological
and moral questions to which Mr.. Curtis. with
his vision converged on the Constitution. paid
only scant attention. For example. he takes
the puyly Constitutional view of the slavery
problen& 5he Constitution did not deny. it did not
even deprecate. the existence Of slavery. Its
makers accepted q fact which they manifestly TO