The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1902-11-28
hedged gardens and tell me about Ii:
boyhood days.

wy uOou uayS.
But Arlington was then thu home
OF another whose name is one indeed
to conJure With, 1t is idle for the
vain-glorious boosters to shout Of
treason, rebellion aud traitors. a
great war was waged. There was
heroism of the noblest kind on both
sides, and names to be rcvered for
high virtues, as well from the North
as from the South, but l believe that
a great majority of those living today
in these United States regard Robert
E. Lee as the one man who came
through that fearful struggle, either
from the North or from the South.
with a record beyond cavil or cri,i.
cism.
Heroic and magnificent in success,
he was, possibly. even nobler in adj
vcrsity. Ia his walks in those gar
dens Of Arlington he must have i'm
bibed the spirit of the great Wash
ington, for his character bears so
close comparison with that of the
Father of his CYuntry" that it
seems to have been formed under
kindred influences.
My friends, l come before you as
Northern man. In the great conflict
between the Coufederacy and tho
Northern States my State was op-
posed to you, and all true citizens
of Pennsylvania were loyal to tac
cause it supported. The great qucs
tions had failed of peaceful solution,
and one of the severest wars of any
era Of the world had to be fought to
a conclusion.
LEE WAS RIGHT.
When Robert E. Lee before the
Virginia Convention said: 81 will
devote myself to the defense and
service of my native State, in whose
behalf alone would l have ever drawn
my sword" be defined clearly the
obligation of a citizen to throw his
fortunes with bis Stale. Here and
there men saw their duties in a diff
ferent light, aud no one should criti-
else harshly an officer of the cd armv
who held different views.
Their position was complicated by
their environment; their training
made them less independent in
thought, as we'll as action, and un-
doubtedly the decision of George II.
Thomas to adhere to the North was
as truly the act of an honorable man
as the. course of Robert E. Lee.
When, acting in its sovereign capa-
city, a State withdrew from the
Union, whether such action was a
cause for war or not, and in my opin-
ion it was certainly the right ofthe
States remaining in the Union to 80
decide, the citizen of such State
was by that withdrawal carried with
it. 1t is impossible to conceive of
an exclusive allegiance to a govern
ment which guarantees none of the
natural rights of its citizens. OF
course, under the Federal Constitu-
ton, so long as a State is included
in the Union, there are duties of citi-
zenship to both the State and the
United States, but they are distinct.
10 his State alone can a citizen ap-
peal to secure him in his home, bis
domestic relations and his rights of
property. Nor can lie divest him
self Of his obligation to serve his
State in the protection of its rights
from invasion, from riot or general
obedience to its laws. The subject
is too large to enter upon here, but
it was an unreasonable view to assert
that any one failed in his loyalty who
clung to his state on either side,
under the conditions which arose in
1861. 1t is probable that our form
of government is too complicated for
the uninstructed citizens to compre-
hend, and certainly few unframed
in the law can define the radical diff
ference between the powers of a
State Legislature and those of Con-
gress. The Constitution of tie
United States. as originally framed,
was marvellous creation, and to my
mind, if strictly followed, would have
met every contingency that has arisen.
But from the first, beginning with
the insidious efforts of Alexander
Hamilton under his doctrine of sim
piled powers" a process of distortion
of the meaning of its plain language
and d subYersion Of its safeguards