The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-10-19

as Sr. Lincoln did not sec that the
siraplo and irrefutable answer to that
is. that it depends on the nature of
the contract. If. at tho time tho con
tract was made. it was mutually under
stood and tacitiy agreed by all tho
parties that each reserved the right to
withdraw. then 4 notice OF such with
drawal was n legal dissolution OF the
contract That was, as we have seen,
precisely the nature of the Federal
contract IN the beginning. So eminent
an authority as Rawlc said: The right
must be considered an original :nEredi-
cnt of the general government. which.
though not Expressed was mutually
understood" And all the evidence
proves Ii.
You speak of the War of the Revo-
luton. and say that the Americans
were called rebels" Very truly But
the cases are entirely different There
is really no analogy between them
Virginia az n colony was n dependent
province Of the British empire. and de-
rived it's political existence from II;
but Virginia as a state was an indie
pendent political community, and eX-
listed prior to the Union, which it
helped 20 create, dclegating to it GER
tain powers. and expressly reserving
to herself all others The right or
revolution is inherent in all political
ton. When il is exercised IL must be
justified by such reasons as those who
appeal to IL may be able TO give. The
Americans set forth their reasons in
the Declaration of Independence, and
the Intelligence of mankind has APP
proved them. They were rebels" and
their struggle was rebellion" and
the British government had legitimate
authority. over them. The Southerners
were lighting for idcntically the same
principles. but they acted on their legal
and constitutional right to annul the
act By which they became members OF
the Union. When they did this. the
Union had no legitimate authority over
them any longer. So there was no re-
bellion about it.
We are told that the Constitution
itself being silent on the subject OF
secession il was Il matter of construc-
ton. and that the North had az much
right to construe it against secession
as the south in favor OF it. The an
swer to that is. that it is a universal
principle. both in law and reason. that
a document must be interpreted in ac-
cordance with the intention OF those
who made IL. | have shown that those
States that adopted the Constitution In
the beginning understood 1T to mean
that they had the right TO withdraw.
We are told that the founders OF the
Most assuredly they did. but only upon
the condition that all would obey the
Constitution. Disloyalty 10 the Con-
stitution was dissolution OF inc
Union That document was the basis
OF the compact 1t was the profounn
conviction Of the people of the south
that chc North no longer regarded the
,Constitution as the paramount law. but
had virtually resolved 10 override It,
and carry through measures destruc-
tive of their fundamental rights. that
made them quit the Union. General
Robert T.. Lee expressed the sentiment
OF the South when he said: Inc act
OF virginia in Withdrawing herseh
from the Union carried him along az
citizen of Virginia. and her laws ana
acts were binding on him l ana my
people considered the act OF the state
legitimate and the seeding states
were merely using their reserved
rights which they had u legal right TO
do" On the way from PETERSBURG 10
Appomattox when the ruin OF the cause
was unm!stakablc, he said: We had.
was satisfied. sacred principles to main
tain and rights TO defend for which
we were in duty bound TO do our best.
even II we pcrished in the cndeaVor.
Long after the war had closed. ana
when men had time 10 reflect calmly
on the dreadful tragedy, his mlnu was
still UnChaflSttit IlIG i!c
against the people OF the North be-
cause believed they were seeking TO
Srest from the people OF the south
their dearest rights" We all believed
the same. and that the Constitution no
longer protected our liberties
Were we mistaken? Possibly So
but / think impartial history VIII de
eide that we were right Inc aooit-
ton party in the North had for years
spurned the Constitution. and de-
uounced il rs "a covenant with hell
and Mr.. Lincoln was the representative
OF that party. What more reasonaote
than TO think that the spirit OF the
marty would control its policy! anu
did il not do so? What consti'ut!ohai
right had Mr.. Lincoln TO use in.ht".
force TO compel the seeded states TO
remain in the Union? The act was
without the authority of law, ultra
wires and unconstitutional THIS was
true of n mYltitude OF other acts Oh
the government. Mr.. Lincoln admitted
il hut justified II because II was heces-
sary TO save the Union. He SAID:
felt that measures otherwise uhcoiiS't
tutional might become lawful by pc
coming Indispensable to the preserVa-
tion of the Constitution through the
preservation OF the nation. Right or
wrong. / assumed this ground, ana no"
.vov IL" This was heroic, and sue
cess made ii patriotic; but II IL was
no, revolutionary. have yet TO learn
the meaning of the word. II was
bold assumption OF autocratic ana ~
legal power under the plea OF pupi'c
necessity. which we denounce as
tyranny in Napoleon and applaud as pa
triotism i'll Lincoln.
The ground on which Mr.. Lincoln
iustif,ed his acts in the effort TO save
the Union" may be conceded. but TINS
disregard of the Constitution was not
confined to war measures only. rake
the case OF West Virginia. According
TO the theory OF the North, state
could not secede. Virginia was In the
Union In spite OF her act of secession
and those OF her citizens who were IN
arms against the government were IN
rebellion. This being the case, what
right had Congress to divide the state?
There was neither law nor precedent
nor the excuse of military necessity
for il. 1t was done simply because
Congress had the power to DO IL. AZ
vas the assertion OF an arbitrary au
thority that Frustrated all the rights
of the reople before supreme despo-
tism West Virginia is the bastard OF