t \w\ UIBBAB"^ WW OP CONGRESS i lIBl'*"'^' HOLLINGER pH8J MILL RUN F3-1543 ^ip ^■■ft?Kl THE SOUTH VINDICATED FROM THE 1 All m t i' m Mim : BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE SURVIVORS' ASSOCIATION OF THE SIXTH REGIMENT, S. C. V., AT THEIR REUNION IN CHESTER, S. C, AUGUST 4th, 1881. >^ / s 2i> BY WILLIAM E. BOGGS, Late Chaplain of the Same. [PUBLISHED BY REilUEST.] COLUMBIA, S. C. I'HINTKl) AT THE PRESBYTERIAN PUBLISniN(4 HOUSE. 1881. =ss 6 4 ^ t^%\ ERRATA. Page 5. liiK' 8. Page 10, line 34. Page 11, line 11. Page U. line 1. Page 15, line 9. Page 18, line 20. Page 22, line 38. Page 24, line 5. Page 25, line 8. Page 48, line 25. For "waits," read "awaits." For "it raa_y be said, as," read •one may saj what." Omit "not only." For "usual," read "moral."' For "discus," read "discuss." For "effect," read "relief." For "formed," read "found." For "debated," read "detected." For "oldest," read "older." For "glory," read "Glory." THE SOUTH VINDICATED FROM THE m l)F llMSi' AID IlLUi : BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE SURVIVORS' ASSOCIATION OF THE SIXTH REGIMENT, S. C. V., AT THEIR REUNION IN CHESTER, S. C, AUGTTST 4th, 1881. // !^- i BY WILLIAM. E. BOGOS, Late Chaplain of' the Same. COLUMBIA, S. C. PRINTKD AT THE PRESBYTERIAN PrBIJSHTNO HOUSE. 1881. 30488 ^,^'^' 0Of CONGRi^ j^IDIDK^ESS BEFORE THE SURVIVORS' ASSOCIATION OF TBE SlITH REGIMENT, S, C, 7. Comrades and Brothers : Time, that spares nothing that is human and mortal, has evidently been making his mark upon you since we parted on our return from the fatal field of Appo- matox. Gray hairs are shining on many a head. Ever-deepen- ino; furrows are bein^ scored on cheek and brow. And, as I look once again into your faces, after the long interval of sixteen years — years burdened with public griefs and humiliations — the pathetic words of Burns come unbidden into my mind: "•John Anderson, my jo, .Jolin, when we were first acquent, Your locks were like the raven, your l)onnie brow was brent ; But now your brow is bold, -John, your locks are like the snow: But biessini!;s on your Frosty pow, John Anderson, my jo.'' The old command would hardly be able, I imagine, to face, as of yore, the icy winds "of Centrcville and Manassas Junction, or to bear the fierce sun of summer in the trenches of Petersburg. Some of you, I am glad to see, give ample evidence of better fare than you had when our good friend, Capt. Love, dealt out three-fourths of a pound of musty corn-meal, and a gill of thin snrglium molasses, while you dreamed of "hard tack" and raw bacon as of luxuries fit for a king! So far as the activities of this life are concerned, my brothers, it is clear that many of us have seen our best days. We shall soon be falling into the "sere and yellow leaf" Death is thin- ning our ranks, even in these days of peace. Only to-day have I learned with pain that our beloved comrade, Capt. W. S. Brand, of Company K, is to bo with us no more in these re- unions. A brave and devoted soldier of his country, we can also say of him, whar is far better now: "Soldier of Christ, well clone! Rest from thy loved employ ; The battle fousjht, the vict'ry won, - Enter thy Master's joy.'' Thus, my comrades, are we made to realise ''That our hearts, thoi!,*;;!) stout and brave, Still, like muffled drums, are beatinf; Fnneral marches to the grave." It is to be hoped that we are getting ready for a sweet rest ivhen the march of life is done, and for a joyful awakening at the reveille of the great day. Right glad I am to meet you, comrades, after these long years of separation. The sight of your faces brings back many astir- ring recollection of the days "that tried men's souls." Many a time have I watched you as you moved down to the conflict, until the white shroud of battle hid you from my anxious eyes. Some here present I may have lifted, mangled and bleeding, from the field to the surgeon's table, where probe and knife had their terrible work to do. We have stood together by the hastily-dug grave, as we wrapped some brave boy in his blanket, that he might rest in the bosom of that mother for whose sake he was willing to die. And how can we ever forj^et those hours of holy worship — sometimes in the solemn twilight, sometimes by the flickering glare of bivouac fires; and again in I'ude sanctuaries built by your own hands, along the lines of entrenchment. Mo- thinks I can almost hear at this moment the rich clear voice of Capt. Brand leading the volume of praise that swelled from your hearts to the God of our fathers. I trust that you will not seek his blessing less frequently or fervently in your peaceful homes, than you did then, in camp and field and hospital. And how many times, as I have pored with swelling heart over the deeds of heroes rehearsed in story and in song, have I recalled that memorable S'th of April, when you learned that, overwhelmed by sheer numbers, the grand Army of Northern Virginia had fought its last battle. How often, when far away from you, have I seen in imagination those faces covered with dust and blackened with the smoke of incessant battle, over which tears of agony had made their long furrows. And amid the horrible excesses of "Reconstruction," I liave often found myself repeating tlie old saying : "Woe waits a country, when She sees the tears of bearded men.'" Our commander lias just been good enough to say that you luive watched my career with pride and pleasure. It was kind in him to say it — kinder still in you to feel it. No man, I am sure, in the old organisation, has more cause to love it than I. Coming to you, as Gen. Bratton has truly observed, a youth, fresh from college, you received me as the ambassador of Christ. It is true, as you were told by our commander, that I have seen pretty hard service since I left you. But nothing gave me half the uneasiness, amid the pestilence-tainted air of Memphis, that I suffered for my brave comrades in Virginia, when I seemed to feel in my heart the thud and crash of every shot that drew blood from you. M}' labors, I may say truly, have everywhere been rewarded with kindness and affection. Grave thoughtful men and devout women have chosen me as their spiritual teacher. But no church can ever take the place that you, ray first flock, "the church in the wilderness," as I may call you, have ever held in my heart. And when, at my own fireside, I shall speak of your brave deeds to m}^ own bright-e3^ed boys, a father's am- bition can ask no more for them than that, should they ever be put to the test, they shall deserve as well of our reunited country as you did of the South. But, comrades, while we thus revive old associations of the camp and battle-field, there are certain questions which invariably came into view, along with these memories. They are questions of the right and the wrong, which underlie and interpenetrate the history of our old regiment, of the armies to which it belonged, and of the whole country and cause for which you battled. There are persons amongst us who are nervous about any allusions to these questions of right and wrong. "It is all past now," they say, "and let the dead past bury its dead issues." Fear gives em- phasis to such reasonings with the timid. But questions of prin- ciple can neve)' be buried. Like Banquo's ghost, they come forth again, and Avill not down at any man's bidding. And, 6 Avliocver else may decline to face these questions, it is certain that you and I cannot afford to decline. They are questions of 7i07i07\ "which deeply affect us. It is known to you that multi- tudes of good men, not only in the United States, but throughout Christendom, hold our conduct to be tainted Avith foulest wrong. The glory of our arms is sullied, they say, by treason and rebel- lion. The charge has been heralded forth to the world by the trunipet-tongued press for these twenty ycai's and more. The historian, applauded wherever the English language is read, for his elo(iuent and accurate rendering of Liberty's struggles in other lands, has given the weight of his nam.e to the accusation. The jurist, in learned disquisitions upon the structure of the Federal Government, has asserted it. The splendid eloquence of Webster has given it the widest currency in men's thoughts. While poets, in sweetest strains have canonized our conquerors, as the champions of law and of huma'jity. You cannot, if you choose, avoid this question of principle. Your children must meet it as a part of the history of our country. It is thrust upon their attention in the political discussions of the day. And if their assertions can be made good — if we were banded together in a vile conspiracy against law and order; if we fought to sus- tain a social system, the essence of which was unchristian and inhuman oppression to the helpless African — then is it true not only that we deserved our crushing defcit, but also the tenfold greater humiliations and oppressions which the so-called peace brought with it; and besides all this, we richly mei-it an immor- tality of shame. There is a fearful responsibility in the sight of God and before the bar of public opinion, which rests someivhere. Every drop of blood shed in that unhallowed strife cries, like Abel's, from the earth which drank it in. Every tear of broken- hearted womanhood, every pang inflicted upon orphaned children, asking in vain for ftithers whom they should never again behold, charges sin at somebody's door. If it be at mine, I wish to know it. I believe in that supreme judgment-seat before which v.-e must all stand to answer for the deeds done in the body. I would not wish to meet God before I had repented and been forgiven, if I have so sinned. You feel as I do in this matter. It is ne- cessary for us, then, to review the grounds of our past action that we may settle, each for himself, what is our present duty. We are agreed, ray comrades, in the opinion that neither courage nor success can establish the righteousness of a cause or atone for the wrong of it. Robbers and pirates have been as brave as Hector. Conquered Poland weeps over the grave of Kosciusko. Mere numbers cannot make that to be just which in the one man were a wrong. More than this. I hold that every element of truth and right which entered into our conduct, is to be cherished as a sacred heritage for our whole country, and for civil liberty all the world over. There is a power in truth and right, which is not alto- gether of earth. "Truth crushed to the earth shall rise again, The eternal years of God are hers ; And on the eternal throne 'tis writ — '■Magna est Veritas et jjrcevalebit.'' ^' Roman poets sang how captive Greece subdued, by the power of thought, her haughty conquerors. If we are true to the right for which you perilled life and limb, if we bear with dignity our painful reverses, if we cultivate genuine respect for the honest intentions of those who, through error of judgment, as we be- lieve, opposed us, we may find yet that peace no less than war has its victories. The invaluable right of local self-government, of "community independence," as Mr. Davis aptly expresses it, the sovereignty and independence of the States, as contrasted Avith and opposed to the centralisation of extra-constitutional powers at the Federal Capital — this was the great end at which we aimed in seeking to separate from the Union. And had it pleased God to give us success, the resulting blessings would have been freely shared with all our associates. This claim of ours to be in the right, to be suffering for a good cause, will, of course, subject us to expressions of contempt, and perhaps also to grave suspicion, on the part of the dominant fac- tion. This burden, also, we must bear manfully and in good temper. We can only disclaim all thought of enforcing our theory by an appeal to arms, and let our conduct continue to vindicate us with all candid observers, in the future, as it has done, under terrible provocations for the past sixteen years. Let coercion have been ever so contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution in 1860, still we have been coerced. And now, as a minority, in the power of an irresistible niiijority, we can only protest against misjudgment, by making our appeal to the better instincts and the more fully informed judgment of the American people. We gave up all thought of further trying our differ- ences by battle when we laid down our arras sixteen years ago. But, of course, we have had credit, with some people, neither for common honesty nor for common sense. The sturdy bear who has just been feeling, on flank and throat, the claws and teeth of the catamount, may be expected to keep a sharp eye upon the thicket whore his maimed adversary lies panting. But one can see that the epithets "rebel" and '"traitor," which were wont to be served up for us piping hot, morning, noon, and night, are fast growing to be the especial bone of certain toothless old hounds who try faithfully to make up in snarling and growling for the inability to bite. You, my comrades, have rested all this while in the in- terpretation of duty which our beloved Lee announced when he sheathed his sword at Appomattox. There is a pretty story abroad concerning an interview between the General and some of the fiery young officers, in which they proposed that, instead of surrendering the army, he should allow it to disband, so that as many as possible might escape from the coils of the anaconda and maintain an active resistance. One can imagine the old hero smiling sadly upon his courageous children, while he said in substance : "Gentlemen, it becomes us to look at this matter as Christians. It would be a sin to promote the useless waste of life. The course which you propose would carry violence to many a peaceful neighborhood where the war has not yet gone. It would fill the land with bands of hungry and desperate men, Avho must live by plunder. Some of you might go to 'bush- whacking.' But it does not suit a man of my years. I shall surrender to Gen. Grant." Can you not recall our great commander as he aj>peared that day when he reviewed our corps at Gordoiisville, just as 3'ou were returning from your campaign in East Tennessee to your old place in the "Army of Northern Virginia ?" It seems that a picture of iiim is photographed in ray memory, as he sat upon his old iron-grey steed, majestic as the Phidian Jupiter, in form and feature the model of manhood, his great, dark eyes flashing like disks of fire, as he surveyed your lines. You remember how you broke over the rules of military discipline. The thunders of cannon and the bugle's loud call had prepared you to expect him. But Avhen he was once more before your eyes, the com- mand, "Present arms!" was not very literally obeyed. The mighty tide of passionate love to your trusted leader was running too high to be expressed in set forms. You tossed your hats into the air, and the wild "Confederate yell," so often heard above the din of battle, burst from yourlieaving bosoms until the hills ranof again. Fifteen thousand men thus signified their willingness to put their lives in his hands, with the same trust with which, when they were babes, they had reclined in the loving arms of their mothers. I remember turning to my friend, Col. Venable of the General's staff, to say: "Don't you know tJiat makes the old hero feel good to the very bottom of his heart ?" "No, B.," he replied, "the General is not think- ing of that now. He knows what sort of a reception they are to meet, poor fellows, at the hands of other people." And when I turned to scan that noble countenance as he gravely uncovered, in response to your enthusiastic greeting, as well as I could see through eyes that were dimmed with mist, there was no flush of warrior's pride, on cheek or brow. The features were as calm as marble, and the firm lips seemed as though they had never smiled. This was, as I remember, the 4th of May, 1864. The next day, you will recall, Ewell's guns at Germania Ford, awoke the echoes of the Wilderness. And on the fUh you were in the thickest of that bloody struggle, wdiich shifted wath scarcely the intermission of an hour, around our right flank, until foiled in every onset, the enemy broke in tumultuous surges against the entrenchments of Richmond, and you had hurled iiim back once 10 again, panting and bleeding, from the crest of Gaines's Mill, Avhence you had driven him Avith the bayonet just two years before. Yes, comrades, our General set us an example of enduring in ilent dignity, in manly patience, those evils which the passions 'lat are excited by war usually accord to the vanquished. It oems unaccountable to us that the brave men of the North should ave condescended to heap upon us such useless indignities and oppressions as the "Reconstruction" period developed. One would have imagined that they would not so readily have suffered political demagogues, who had never smelled burnt powder, to use them as tools of revenge and oppression against their country- men, Avhose courage, constancy, and evident honesty of purpose, Avhatever they might think of your judgment, had won from them a generous recognition while you stood, foot to foot, on the hotly contested field. You doubtless have heard with sorrow the effect which these uidiappy events seemed to exert upon the dutiful soul of Gen. Lee. That same sympathy which made him insen- sible to the throbs of a gratified ambition, when, at Gordonsville, the wild transports of your enthusiasm, showed how you were ready to die at his bidding, also laid upon him the great burden of his afflicted country. There seems to be abundant evidence that his great heart bled silently all the while. Scorning to utter his complaints to man, he doubtless pleaded for us before that Lord to whom he had looked, in Christian faith, for guidance in those days when he felt the responsibility^ of holding in his hands the lives of brave men and the destinies of his country There seems to be no doubt that these oppressive griefs hurried him to his death. A few — very few — even among his enemies, have taken it upon them to attempt to detract from the just fame of the greatest name in the military annals of Anierica. The press tells us that the one has made this blunder, whom least of all men it becomes so to speak. But of that individual, it may be said, as Talleyrand observed to the Parisian beauty who asked him how she should manage to get rid of her troublesome ad- mirers. It was her misfortune to have bad teeth. And the bitter rejdy to her inijuiry was : ^'■Madam, you have bat to open 11 your mouth.'' Lee's fame is beyond tliereacli of detraction. It is part of tlic heritage of the Anglo-Saxon race. And the groat ■world applauds our bard, when, in his exalted enthusiasm, he says : "Never hand waved sword from stain so free ; Nor a truer brand led a braver band ; Nor a l)raver died for a fairer land : Nor fairer land had cause so i^rand, Nor cause had a leader like Lee." Comrades, I am thoroughly persuaded of your capacity so to naster the details of this controversy as not only to be able, not jnly to satisfy the demands of your own consciences, (which loubtless you have done,) but also to be ready to give to your •hildren, and others who claim it, a reason for your faith; and that in such a manner as to vindicate the living and the dead from the charge of rebellion and treason. I well remember the keen zest, and shrewdness too, with which around the camp-fire, you entered into discussions upon the issues of the war, the policies of the rival governments, and the conduct of public men. I remember how you relished the biting wit of the RicJimond Examiner, while you dissented from many of its conclusions. I do not forget that, when your General of Division (whom you greatly liked and admired) was suddenly placed at the head of the Western army, you gravely shook your heads, while you said, "The President has spoiled a good lieutenant to make a poor captain." You had taken the gauge of the man, and knew better than the ablest men at a distance just what our Mnjor-General could do, and what he could not do. Mr. Davis himself is far too sagacious an observer of men, not to do homage to the unprejudiced instincts of the private soldier. A friend, who had good opportunities to learn wdiat occurred in the higher governmental circles at Richmond, repeated to me this observation of our accomplished chief: "I receive," he said, "two conflict- ing opinions touching Gen. [Stonewall] Jackson. The one conies from many scientific soldiers, the other from the rank and file of his army. As for myself, I believe the rank and file to be nearer the truth." You come of a stock among whom the attribute of individuality is probably more highly developed than elsewhere 12 in tlie United States. The presence among you of a race held under subordination, tended to develop self-reliance and individ- uality in you. Hold fast to your inherited traits, and judge for yourselves in this great controversy. Do not allow the strono- current of hostile opinion to drown you out. You have the best of helps in forming your judgment. Mr. Stephens first, and now, of late, Mr. Jefferson Davis, have laid us all under lasting obligations by their m:isterly defence of the honor of Southern men. I trust that you will not fail to study the "War between the States," and especially the "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government." Its pure classic English, its exhaustive learning, logical argument, and devoted patriotism, will go forth among thinking men as a fitting protest against hasty and harsh judg- ment of us. Let your children become familiar with that able discussion, and thev will be in no dansrer of iirowinw ashamed of the cause for which you contended, or of the manner in which ^-ou ac(|uitted yourselves. I propose offering some suggestions in tlie way of stimulating and guiding your inquiries into a subject that so nearly not only concerns your honor, but one that involves — so the fathers of the Republic have testified — the very foundations of American liberty, the oorner-stone of the whole system. The Secession movement, then, may be viewed from eitlier of these two standing-points : firsts it may be regarded as an at- tempted revolution ; or, secondly, it may be treated in special relation to the Federal system set forth in the Constitution, and the Union of States based thereupon. Let us take our view from each of these standing-points, in their order. 1. And /?"rsr, regarded as an attempted revolution in the ex- isting Government, we may claim tlrat Secession was morally justifiable upon the same grounds as justified our fathers in sepa- rating from the British Empire. For this solemn step our fathers pleaded the wrongs inflicted upon them by the British Government, and the inalienable rights of freemen ; and, relying upon the justice of their cause, they were willing to appeal to arms. After years of suffering, victory crowned their efforts, and they were acknowledged as independent. The "right of 13 revolution" in tliis cnso is admitted by all Americans. It de- pends entirely upon certain moral and •political considerations, which our fathers set forth in the famous Declaration of hide- pendence. But, in later times, a some^vhat different statement has been made. For example, Mr. Lincoln, speaking in his place as a member of Congress in 1848, uses these words : "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the poiver^ have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a sacred right — a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the Avorld. Nor is the right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionise, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolu- tionise, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose their movements. Such minority was precisely the Tories of our own Revolution. It is the quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break off both, and make new ones." Cited by Mr. Stephens. You will be able to see more readily, by means of the words which I have emphasised, that pli//sical force is here introduced as if it were an essential element of this inalienable natural right. It is an element, of course, which can larely, if ever, be ascer- tained without bloodshed. According to this, it would follow as a necessary inference, that our fathers were somewhat hasty and premature in basing an undoubted claim upon such moral and po- litical considerations as are found in their great manifesto, inas- much as, on the 4th of July, 1776, it was clearly impossible for mortal man to say whether or not they had "the power" to en- force it. Judge Black of Pennsylvania seems to take similar ground touching Secession. It was, he thinks, a revolutionary proceeding. We ought to have admitted it, and to have expected the consequences — which of course means an appeal to arms, that it might be decided which of the two parties had "the power." It would be quite difficult, I imagine, to show, according to this theory, that George III. did any wi'ong in opposing our fathers 14 with firo ami sword, notwithstanding- the usual considerations set forth in their manifesto to the world, since only in this way could it be known whether or not the "rebels, ' as he termed them, had '•'■the pozver/' Mr. Greeley was far more consistent with raoral reasoning when he thus expressed himself in the New York Tribune, under date of November 9, 1860 : "The tele- graph informs us that most of the Cotton States are meditating a withdrawal from the Union, because of Lincoln's election. Very well ; they have aright to meditate. . . . And now, if the Cottoa States consider the value of the Union debatable, we maintain their perfect right to discuss it. Nay, we hold, with Jefferson [in the Declaration of Independence], to the inalienable riglit of COMMUNITIES to alter or abolish forms of government that have become oppressive or injurious, and if the Cotton States shall decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless ; aiid we do not see how one paiiy can have a right to do what another party has a right to prevent." [Italics mine.] Our fathers certainly acted on the theory of Mr. Greeley, not on that of Mr. Lincoln and Judge Black. Indeed, it seems im- possible for them to have acted at all, if they hnd attempted to carry out this theory of revolution. TIow far this erroneous view may have, in the end, united the "War Democrats" and Mr. Lincoln in the wicked and cruel policy of King George, it might be curious to investigate. But my purpose requires that we rather turn our consideration to the reasons whicli pronipted us to separate from the General Government at Washington. And as we do so, let it be remembered all the while, that the men of 1860 acted, according to Jefferson's theory, as '^coin- munities," not as mobs. These State governments were as orderly in their movements as were the revolutionary govern- ments in 1776. They were as able to conserve the great needs of government — the protection of the individual in the enjoy- ment of life, liberty, and property — as were those set up by their f\ithers in the preceding century. It was not as disorderly mobs of individuals that the secej govern- ments, before the Declaration of Independence was authorised by them ; some taking care, however, to say that the revolutionary governments were only to last until accommodation could be had with the King. TliirdJij, this "Declaration" was not of the nature of an organic laiv at all, but only had the force of a man- ifesto, addressed to the civilised woidd. Fourtlthf, the delegates of the colonies, or States, showed their appreciation of this, by proceeding at once to draw up "Articles of Confederation," hav- ing the force of organic law, which would really unite the States into a Confederacy. These points are all patent upon the face of our history, and have been, as Mr. Stephens shows, embodieil in the decisions of our Supreme Court — "War between the States," Vol. I., pp. 76-81. The verbal analysis, offered by Mr. Everett 24 in his New York speech, showing, as he imagined, from the Dec- laration of Independence, that the "good people of these colonies" are "one people," is seen to be a mere quibble, not only violating the laws of language (Mr. Davis), but also so conflicting with the testimony of history as to be debated by any one acquainted with the facts. -ith. Pending the signing of this manifesto, a committee had been appointed (June 11th) to draw up such articles of confeder- ation as would unite the Colonies, or States, in a league for their common defence. This was to be Icm, indeed, the fundamental law of the Confederation, and not a mere "declaration," or appeal to the civilised world. On the 12th of July, eight days after the signatures had been afiixed to the manifesto, this sketch of the first constitution was reported to the Congress. It bore as its title this significant legend : ''Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Neiv Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, Neiv Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaivare, Blaryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.'' And, after giving the name and style of the league to be the "United States of America," the instrument went on to say in the second article : "-Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederacy expressly delegated, to the United States, in Congress assembled." These articles were ap- proved by the Congress, Nov. loth, 1777, and by some of the States in the following year. But the process of ratification was only completed March 1st, 1781, Maryland having for years re- fused to adopt or be bound by them. One more decisive fact completes this hasty examination. The delegates of a State in the Congress varied at option, but each State had one vote, as well Delaware with her population of 60,000 and Rhode Island with 70,000, as Pennsylvania with 400,000 and Virginia with 750,000. Surely these fiicts show how much more correct was Mr. Webster's judgment as to the nature of the government set up by these "Articles of Confederation," than was that of Judge Srory or Mr. Kvei'ett. when, rej)lying in the Senate to Mr. •I'o Hayne. in 1830, he adiiiitted that the Confederation was just what the name implies, a league or compact^ between separate, independent political bodies, uniting only in certain respects, and for specified ends. But the great Senator himself fell into a most egregious error in 1H33, when, in his famous speech on "The Calhoun Resolutions," he based his argument for the fun- damental difference between that form of government proposed by the Convention of 1787 and the oldest one, on the word '■'•Con- stitution;'' for, as Calhoun was able to show, the records of that day, the resolution of the Congress advising the holding of a Convention in 1787, and the enactments of the States agreeing to do it, are thickly sown with the word "Constitution," "Fed- eral Constitution," "Constitution of the Confederation." And his accusation that the terms, "compact," and "accede," as em- ployed by the great Carolinian, were new inventions, introduced "for a purpose," fell to the ground when history was called to testify as to the terms used by Washington and his contempo- raries. In full keeping with these fjicts, it remains to be mentioned, that, when at length the war ended with a treaty of peace, the British Government acknowledged each of the Colonies by name as ^^independent States." And in the fifth article of the treaty. Congress agreed to recommend earnestly to the Legislatures of the respective State? to exercise the privileges of sovereignty, by ordering the restitution of estates "to real British subjects," etc. o^/i. But. as might have been anticipated, experience began by and by to discover some very serious defects in the details of the Articles of Confederation. The chief of these had respect to the mode of raising revenue for the General Government. No power to levy taxes having been conferred on it by the articles, the General Government was left to apportion out the estimated expenses, and then make a requisition upon each State for its share. The carelessness, or the jealousy, of State officers, was in this way working serious detriment to the Confederation, by lenving it helplessly in debt, while chafing and hard feelings began to appear. This was the course of matters in similar Confederacies, as in that of the I'nited Netherlands. The ob- 2ti vious cure was to c.")!! soli date tlie thirteen States into one. And there were good and wreat men, like Hamilton of New York, Morris of Pennsylvania, Randolph of Virginia, and Pinckney of South Carolina, who were for it. And Madison leaned in that direction, but without going so far. But the plan adopted, as we shall see, was to adhere to the old plan of confederation between independent States, while giving to tlie General Government, as their common agent, certain enlarged powers, among which the most important was that of dealing directly Avith citizens instead of making requisition on the States. At various times during the war, Congress, moved by its diffi- culties, had petitioned the States for power to regulate trade, but without success, inasmuch as no plan could be devised upon which all were willing to unite, as required by Article XITI. of their compact. It was this source of trouble chiefly that finally led to the General Convention of 1787, wherein the present plan was drafted, and by whom it was recommended to the several States for their ratification. We have now reached the most important epoch in the consti- tutional history of our country ; for here, if anywhere, the States agreed to merge their sovereignties into one great State. A sort of skirmishing has been undertaken by Judge Story and Mr. Everett, to establish a basis for the consolidation theory farther back than this. Put Mr. Webster having expressly repudiated such a line of defence, in his reply to Hayne, this Convention has become the battle-ground where the question is to be decided as to the nature of our Government. First, then, as to the origin, of this General Convention. In 1785, Mr. Monroe having again raised in the Congress the ques- tion of asking the States to delegate to the General Government power to regulate trade, it was deemed more prudent that the movement should begin with the States. And accordingly, the General Assembly of Virginia, under the lead of Madison, issued a call for a Convention of the States at Annapolis, Md., Sept. 16th, 178t). But only four other States having accepted the in- vitation, the body, after recommending the call of another, to meet in Philadelphia on the second Monday in May, was dis- 27 solved. In the resolution, the following objects were proposed for the Convention of the States at Piiiladelphia : "To take into consideration the situation of the United States; to devise such further provisions as shall appe^ir to theia necessary to render the Constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the ex- igencies of the Union ; and to report such an Act for that pur- pose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and aftervv'ards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State, will effectually provide for the same." The scope of this action having been made so wide, they gave as a reason for it, that upon reflection, the power to regulate trade (which was needed to give the General Government assured stability) was found to be so connected with the system as to re- quire other changes to be made. Their recommendation being duly reported to their own States, and a copy sent to the Executives of the other States and to Congress, that body passed a resolution endorsing the movement, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Con- federation, and reporting to Congress and the several Legisla- tures such alterations and provisions therein," etc. Thus we see that the object proposed was the amendment of an existing Constitution, and that the power of the General Convention was advisor//. Ir was to "report" to Congress and the Legislatures, according to the provisions of Article XTII., and only after ever^ State had approved, would any changes be- come effective. Meanwhile, before <'ongress had acted (on January 21, 1787), several of the States had appointed delegates. Others followed, and on the second Monday in May, twelve States being present by their delegates, the Convention was organised by the election of Gen. Washington as its President. Rhode Island declined to take any part. Before the Convention had assembled, however, Jefferson seems to have sketched, in a letter to Madison, written from Paris, the outlines of the division of the General Govern- ment into three departments — Legislative, Executive, and Ju- dicial. And by degrees, too, the thoughtful statesmen of that day began to catch glimpses of the plan of remedying the fric- •>,«; tion between the General and State Governments, by giving to the former power to act immediately on the citizen. In this Avay revenue could be assured and collision escaped. The idea can be traced to the speculations of Montesquieu, who had proposed it as an expedient for a Federal Republic, or composite govern- ment, made up of several units that were independent states in all except certain delegated powers. The enactments of the various Legislatures show that the delegates derived all authority from their respective States. And this was made clear also by the manner of voting, each State, the smaller as well as the larger, being allowed a single vote, no matter how many delegates it might have. It soon became evident that there was groat diversity of opinion as to the best plan for removing the existing evils. Luther Mar- tin, an able delegate from Maryland, has left his account of the parties. One, he says, was for merging the several States into one great State. Another was bent upon obtaining increased weight in the General Government for the larger States. The third, about equal in numbers to the other two combined, was for the Federal system already in force., but with enlarged powers. This highly intelligent testimony from an active member of the Philadelpliia Convention, is totally opposed to the interpretation of Webster. And the controlling majority of the Federalists is made more apparent when we remember that the second party of which he speaks were only seeking some such re(;ognition of the population of a State aa was provided for by representation in the lower House. Very early in the sessions opportunity was given for a test vote. Randolph of Virginia introduced a series of resolutions, the first of which insisted upon the necessity of a "National Government." And in the series this expression was repeated twenty-six times. But upon motion of Mr. Ellsworth of Con- necticut, these words were stricken out in every instance, and the old title, "Government of the United States," substituted in its place. In advocating the change, Ellsworth said that he wished it to go forth that the Convention pi'oposed the amend- ing of an existing government, not the creation of a new one. 29 One of the most important steps taken by the Convention was the determination to go beyond their instructions in one impor- tant particular. It is certain that at first it was proposed to go by the plan of passing amendments prescribed in Article XIII. of the old Constitution ; that is, after being approved by the Con- gress, they were to be submitted to each State Legislature, and only when approved by every one of these, could a change be made. This unanimity was now clearly out of the question, for one of the States had refused to be present in Convention. It was therefore recommended, as now found in Article VII. of the amended Constitution, that '"'■the ratification of the Convetitions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of the Con- stitution between the States so ratifying the same.'' It was in this Article that Calhoun found his unanswerable argument showing that the Constitution is a compact "between the States" ratifying it. It shows, besides, these important facts : (1) that the act of each State alone could bind its people ; and (2) that provision was herein made with all deliberation for the secession of nine of the States (each acting as above shown, for itself only) from the existing Union, in order that they might form another, and, as was believed, abetter, under the new Con- stitution. And in order the more readily to give effect to this departure from the plan first contemplated, it was proposed that the ratifications of the States should be made by the people in Convention, rather than by the Legislatures, who, acting by dele- gated authority, were one degree lower than the people. This innovation upon the appointed method set forth in Article XIIL, awakened, as might have been anticipated, suspicion and criticism. It was charged with being a proposal to commit a breach of good faith. "How can you expect us to accept the pledges exacted by the new Constitution," they said, "when, in making it, you will disregard former pledges which are equally sacred?" To this objection Madison replied in the Federalist, to this effect: "It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the Articles are mutually conditions of each, other ; that a breach of any one Article is a breach of the whole treaty ; and that a breach committed by either of the parties so absolves the others, and authorises them, if they please, to pro- nounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to such delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the Federal pact, will not the couj plaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time was, when it was incumbent on us to veil the ideas which this paragraph ex- hibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictated." To this statement of the case, the keen objectors of that day found no satisfactory answer. And the argument once admitted, as an explanation of the first union of the States, shows the "wisdom of Mr. Webster in parting company with Judge Story, as he did in his reply to Hayne in 1830, Avhen he so explicitly admitteil that union to have been a league. We shall see how his mighty intellect erred, when, contrary to the recorded testi- mony of its framers, he tried to make the new government appear to be of an entirely different species, instead of being of the same species with new grants of power. But this departure from the plan of amending the existing Constitution laid down in Art. XIII., necessitated a change in the mere phraseology of the preamble to the amended Constitu- tion which, though deemed by the Convention to be of a trivial import, has, principally through the misinterpretations of Mr. Webster, proved to be a fruitful source of evil in later times. The preamble as first written was in these words : " We the ■people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaicare, Manjland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the fol- lowing Constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity.'' This preamble had been unanimoushj adopted by the Conven- tion. No change of opinion regarding the '"people" who were to "ordain" the Constitution is even hinted at as taking place. But inasmuch as provision had afterwards been made for any nine 31 iStates to leave the old, and form tlie new, government, it being plainly impossible to say certainly which of the thirteen would avail themselves of the provision, there was a manifest impro- priety in retaining" all the names of the States. Therefore, in the revision, the preamble was so altered as to be conformed to Art. VII., by writing, We the people of the United States." The change, indeed, as Mr. Stephens obse^'ves. ("Constitu- tional View of the War," etc.. Vol. I., p. 138,) was made by a ^"^ sub committee on style,'' whose business it was to see that all parts of the document corresponded as to phraseology. They reported, of course, to the Convention, and, in adopting their report, it ordered the verbal change to be made. But that it in- volved a change of principle — such a fundamental change of their opinions as to the parties about to make the compact — history sternly denies. "We the people of the United States," as in- terpreted by the history can only signify, " We the people of each State so united.'' The most valued argument of Webster and his school is based upon a misconception of the facts fur- nished by this history. But the discussions in print, and before the several State Con- ventions, shed further light upon these controverted words, "We the people of the United States." In the Virginia Convention the keen intellect of Patrick Henry had scented danger in the phrase, and he demanded the reason for saying, "We the people of the United States," instead of "We the States." Madison, "the father of the Constitution," thus answered him : " Who are the parties to it [the Constitution] ? The people — but not the people as composing one great body ; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties : were it, as the gentleman [Mr. Henry] asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment, and as a majority have adopted it al- ready, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it ; were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this State without having had the privilege of deliberating upon it; but, sir, as it is, no State is bound by it, unthout its own consents Mr. Henry still continued to urge objections; but as he did not again recur to this one, it is fair to judge that his difficulty was ?.9 relieved by the unanswerable logic of" Madison, which sweeps from the field Mr. Webster and his party, as Avell as Mr. Henry's difficulty. In the "Federalist," No. XXX FX, he mee-ts objections in ex- actly the same way: "That it will be a Federal, and not a Nat- ional act, as these terms are understood by objectors, the act of the people as forming so many independent States, not as form- ing one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single considera- tion, that it is to result neither from the majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It roust result from the unanirnous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing in no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction," [/. e. the "ordaining and establishing" of the revised Constitution,] "as forming one nation, the will of the ma- jority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be deter- mined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by con- sidering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these has been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitu- tion, is considered as a sovereign body, indeperident of all others, ayid only to he hound by its own voluntary act." Thus Madison, "the father of the Constitution," though per- sonally favoring a strong central government, is totally opposed to Webster's view of "the people in the aggregate" being the parties who "ordain and establish their constitution." He not only denies that construction, but completely refutes it by citing the facts in the case. Mr Davis is fully sustained in saying that it was Webster's fate to revive the current objections which had been urged at first against the Constitution by its enemies, and to impose them upon himself and others as the true exposition of the document. For this great error he has obtained from ill-in- formed partisans,, dazzled by the splendors of his genius, the title of "the great Expounder of the Constitution." The Convention having completed its revision, "reported," as it had been instructed to do, to the Congress, and in due time their recommendations were laid before the States in their sepa- rate conventions. It was here, as Madison observed, that the real work was to be done which was to give legal authority to the new compact: "It is time now," he wrote in the ''Federalist," No. XL., "to recollect that the powers [of the General Convention] were merely advisory and recommendatory; that they were so meant by the States, and so understood by the Convention; and that the latter have accordingly planned and proposed a Consti- tution which is to be of no more consequence than the paper on which it is written, unless it be stamped with the approbation of those to whom it is addressed." The ratifying acts of the several State Conventions, as they are spread in extenso upon the pages of Mr. Stephens, are of prime importance to the correct understanding of this question. An examination of them will show that in every instance, these Conventions understood that the Constitutional draft was now "proposed" to them, and that the act of each, in ratifying or re- jecting, would bind the people of its own State exclusively. "We the deputies of the people of the Delaware State for and in behalf our constituents, fully, freely, and entirely, ap- prove of, assent to, ratify, and confirm the said Constitution." "In the name of the people of Pennsylvania . . . the dele- gates of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . . . do, in the name, and hy the anfhority of the same people, and for ourselves, assent to and ratify the foregoing Constitution for the United States of America." The debates in the various State Conventions are invaluable helps in determining the interpretation put upon their own handi- work by the great men who acted as the agents of the States. And especially in the Conventions of Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, were the debates instructive, not only because of the ability of members, but because their sentiments were nearly equally divided on the question of adopting. Massachusetts cast 187 votes for it, and 168 against it. Having, perhaps, sufficiently anticipated what was said in the Virginia Convention, it may be 3 84 well to sample the resolutions and debates in that of New York. The Convention of the Empire State, in the very act of ratification, like several of the other States, embodied in formal declara- tions, its sense of the compact, and of the limitations under which it was willing to adopt it. Among these declarations, explanatory of the sense in which New York ratified the Constitution, are these: "That all power is originally vested in. and consequently derived from the people, and that Government is instituted by them for their common interest, protection, and security." "That the powers of government may be re-assumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remaiyis to the people of the several States, or to the respective State Governments to Avhom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the Constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Con- gress is entitled to any powers not given by the said (Constitution : but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to cer- tain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution." Other declarations follow, relating to religion, the militia, standing armies in peace and war, trial hy jury, the right of search, public assemblies, freedom of the press, elections, ex post facto lau's, writs of error, process against a State, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, ^-c. The enactment then goes on to say : "Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or viohited, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the aforesaid Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive mature consideration, We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the State of New York, do, by these presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution." In the discussions Chancellor Livingston said : ''The gentleman from Dutchess appears to have misapprehended son\e of the ideas which dropped from me. My argument was that a Republic might very properly be formed bi/ a league of States, l)ut that the laws of the general Legislature must act, and be enforced, upon int therefore occur as ordered by the Cnstitution. State officials, being constrained by their oath, have no choice but to see it done. And so the government must go on in perpetuo. Mr. Davis (as also Mr. Stephens) very correctly exposes the double confusion of thought betrayed by this argument of the great orator — the confounding of the limited powers of a State government with the unlimited sovereignty of the people thereof, acting in their conventions; also the delegated powers of the General Government with the same sovereignty. Now it may be very safely, so far as we are concerned, conceded that Webster's argument is conclusive as to the discretion of a State government, though in this Hamilton is against him. But it does not, by any means, follow that the sovereign jjeople are thereby estopped. The power which delegates is competent to recall, as in all unlimited partnerships. The citizen became connected with the General Government solely through the act of his State. So long as his State continues to ratify the compact, so long he is bound thereby. But his sovereign having formally annulled the compact, the subject is free from it. The act by which your sovereign, the State, speaking in her convention, repealed her former ratifieation of that compact was the exercise of an un- delegated right — a right, therefore, which, by the express language of the Tenth Amendment, is reserved '•''to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution distinguishes clearly between the two forms of power, each of which is in popular language termed a "State" — the delegated powers of the governrnent, and the original fountain, the peojjle. The distinction had been clearly made in the Philadelphia Convention, and on that distinction, Art VII. had been based. When, therefore, my comrades, you obeyed the voice of your sovereign State in leaving the Union, you acted in strict con- formity to law : you kept your faith with every man. And when, 48 further, you took up arms to defend your sovereign, you did no more than your bounden duty. The bloody war was, on your part, one of self-defence. You asked only to be let alone in the discharge of that duty. Brothers of the Sixth Regiment ! look upon that faded, tattered banner, that floats above our heads, preserved to us by the accident of being already too old for ser- vice when we surrendered our arms at Appomattox. A "con- quered banner," it may be called, because it was overwhelmed by tenfold odds. I see upon it the names of "Williamsburg," "Seven Pines," "Gaines' Mill," "Frazier's Farm," "Second Manassas," and "Sharpsburg." I see it to be rent with hostile shot. Some dark stains may be on its folds too. But, com- rades, they are the sacred drops of patriot blood, which hallow, but cannot defile. There is no spot of dishonor upon thee, thou emblem of a fallen, but upright people, of a cause "lost," so far as the bloody arbitrament of the sword could avail it, but dear to our saddened hearts as the memory of a buried love. Dear old banner! What memories it recalls of strong hands that bore it amid the crash and roar of battle, until they relaxed in the pangs of dissolution — of eyes that strained after it, as it floated amid eddying clouds of smoke, until the films of death blotted it out ! Our brave comrades ! "On Fame's eternal canipin