Year: 1864

processes to be based on the decision of the


Supreme Court in the Hiawatha case. That


decision Is perverted to sustain this theory.


The court condemned certain property cap


tured, because the property was within the


lines Of the enemy, actually holding those


lines by force, though without right; and


not because Of the moral or political rela-


tion of the owner. The court decided moth


ing as to the legal and political status of


the owner; but because the property would


help the enemy, 1t was to be taken as prize


OF war. There is in that decision no


recognition Of the right of secession; much


less of the monstrous and cruel doctrine


that rebels in arms can abolish the legal


rights of loyal men or the institutions of


States.


If war blots out the States insurgent, by


virtue of its territorial and belligerent


character, then war does by its violence,


what secession would do, by its ordinances.


The right to expunge State, is coordinate


with the right to secede. If a State can be


forced out by the vote ofits own sovereignty,


or by combinations of men, without con-


stitutional amendment, then any State can


be expelled by federal action. If the Union


becomes disagreeable to a State, then the


State may become disagreeable to the


Union; and if State exist, which deny
co-relate. They are inseparable. Suppose


it had been proposed to eXpel South Caro-
lima from the Union for her cOntumacy; or


Massachusetts, for her erintermeddling-


burst of Indignation we should have had


from each! They would have exclaimed:


''Show'us the power to throttle our State


Sovereignty, by denying us participation


in this blessed Union. What! strip lis of
our American citizenship-place us outside
ofyour navigation and commercial laws and


A,n., ,.Nfr


powers; belittle us to nothing; rob us of
our common interests in a common treasure,


territory, government, history and glory.


Never" Yet wherein does this claim of


holding these States South as conquered


provinces by military force; degrading the


equal dignity of the States by the creation


of a new sovereign power, differ in prin-
ciple from secession?


If secession be nullity, and if the Con-
stitution is not impaired nor the rights of
the States destroyed, then l can see how
arms-inspired by wise and persuasive
measures may in time, redeem the States;
but on the other theory-all the tears
miseries, ,confscation and blood are in vain,
in vain, in vain. Can we be surprised, there
FORE that an analytic mind like that of the
Postmaster General, should have at once
described in these fallacies of abolition, a
conspiracy in aid of the rebellion?


~. now propose to apply the lessons of
history, by inquiring, whether, even admit
ting all the plans to be legal, and even if
decided to be so-some wiser, better and
more practicable plan may not be adopted.
Is there no amnesty-no accommodation pos
sible? There is. believe that the restora-
ton of the Union is possible, if we pursue
proper policy. The restoration of the
Union as it was, is only impossible to those.
who for other objects, do not desire it. The
reconciliation of all the States is possible
nay, probable, with the restoration of the
doctrine of local self-government and State
sovereignty ON matters not delegated to the
Federal Government. know no other hope.
If this fail, all is dark and chaotic. Diversi-
ty of interests and systems find their unity
alone in this system of laiSSez Jaire to the
States.


How then is it possible to restore local
and State sovereignty and thus unite our
hapless and lacerated country? History
never presented so grand a problem for
craftsmanship. / approach it with some-
thing of thatawe, which solemnizes the soul,
when we enter within some vast and con-
secrated fabric-vistas and aisles of thought
opening on every side-pillars and inches
and cells within cells, mixing in seeming
confusion, but all really in harmony, and
rich with light streaming through the
dim forms of the past, and blest with an
etfluence from God, though dimmed and
half lost in the contaminated reason and |
passion of man.


Conscious of the magnitude of this rebel |
lion, and oppressed with the feebleness of |
the policy directed against it. still believe |
in the restoration of the old Union. Hence, |
whatever method i should advocate for the |
conduct of the war, or the celebration of |
peace, am forever concluded against one |
conclusion; the independence of the South. |
believe the principle of unity to be abb
solutely superior to the right of sectional
nationality. The destiny of these United
States is to continue united, and, perhaps,
to add other States, until the whole con-
tinent is in alliance. Our fate is to expand |
and not to contract our influence or our
limits. All other nations are but transitory |
and evanescent.


l am happy to be in accord with the Pres
ident if indeed he holds yet to the doctrine
in his Inaugural: physically
speaking, we cannot separate" | had
adopted the same sentiment, that there were
Union foundations, by the very political
geology of God, upon which the old Union
could and would be rebuilt. In his first
the President held:


"The two sections could not remove from each
otnoi nur puilu III iulpooSlpio wall petheen tneni
that intercourse amicable hostile, must continue
Is it possible then, to make that intercourse more
advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation
than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than
friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faith
fully enforced between aliens than laws can among
friends2 Suppose you go TO war, you cannot fight
always and when, after much loss on both sides and
gain either, you cease fighting the identical old
questions as to terms Of intercourse are again upon
you"


These sentiments are founded in principle,
and drawn by correct deductions from his
tory. They are the germ of all true politics.
Sorry am l that in a moment of pressure
and temptation he should have been drawn
from them by the wierd whispering of
under the baleful eclipse of ia
" 1a4 l.


The argument from physical, and there
fore from economic reasons, tor the per-
petuity of the Union, is powerful. But his
tory and the experience of other nations
show that the dissolution of the old Union
might consist with a different kind of unity.
Any Union which would leave trade free
md locomotion unrestricted between the
States north and south, interior and ex-
;erior, would answer the mere physical
ind economic objects of Union. 1t Is well
Known that Judge Douglas contemplated
Is among the possibilities an American
which would have secured unity
If territory for commercial purposes. In
IN essay which he said had cost him more
abor than any work of his life and which
leath prevented him from giving to his