Subjugation

Here is another article from the June 1, 1861 Covington Journal.

Subjugation

No matter how pure may be the intentions of the Administration - no matter that Mr. Seward or President Lincoln may honestly desire simply and solely to sustain the Constitution  and perpetuate the Union - such a Constitution and such a Union as our fathers framed -- will be utterly destroyed. The indications afforded even by the telegraphic dispatches show that a spirit has been aroused which so difficult it may be to lay it, may subvert those republican liberties which the Constitution was to guard -- A military character will be impressed on our people; and hereafter it is to be feared there will be constantly in our midst hundreds of thousands of men who will be content with no peaceful occupation. They will be the ready instruments of any man popular enough to reach eminent station, and daring enough to abuse that station to his personal advancement, regardless of the checks of laws and Constitutions. 


We the other day commented with painful interest upon an article in the Springfield (Ill) Journal, which claimed dictatorial powers for the President. We were astonished at the appearance of so elaborate a defense of Despotism in any American paper. But it may soon be that such championship of autocracy will be found so profitable and so common as no longer to excite surprise. The danger to all the reserved rights of the States seems well nigh overwhelming, and equally so the incoming of a consolidated power, which is substantially the equivalent of an imperial despotism


The subjugation of certain of the States is familiar talk. But that subjugation may be universal. Not only the sufferer will be the State which is carried by fire and sword; but all will finally share a common doom.


To prevent a fate like this, what appeal can be made? The question is one of terrible moment, and how it will be answered we confess our inability now to see. Perhaps a reaction may set in and a sense of the perils in store for us as a people, will be awakened in time to avert them. - But the present hour looks dark and gloomy enough. The Journal of Commerce, with its usual consideration and sound judgment, briefly presents the case thus: 


"If any good result could come out of using force against the seceded States, there might be a plausible reason for its exercise. As it is, the most cogent argument we have heard is, that we shall thus determine "whether we have a government." With all respect for those who feel solicitude on that point, we suggest that one thing is likely to be demonstrated, viz: that we have not, and in the event of the subjugation of the Southern States, are not likely to have such a government as the Constitution contemplates or such as our fathers understood to be instituted when the Union was formed. The government, when established, was a government of equals ,in which all the States would perform willing parts. The one which our warlike friends (it seems) by the Lincoln Administration would prove to exist, is a government of force, where a majority of States or of the Representatives as the case may be, shall hold the minority in subjection to their will. If it is to demonstrate this fact, that war is to be precipitated upon the country, then we doubt whether the motive is one of humanity - much less of right."

Federal Usurpations

Nathaniel Lyon, courtesy of www.nps.gov

Here is an article from the Covington Journal of May 18, 1861

Our government, at a single bound, has passed from the limits of a Constitutional Democracy into a Military Despotism.


The executive at Washington has no warrant in law or precedent for calling for volunteers to serve three years, and no shadow of authority to increase the regular force of the Army and Navy.


The St. Louis affair is another example of flagrant usurpation. The cowardly act of firing on a crowd of men, women and children carries with it its own condemnation. It is the assault of the Federal troops on the State troops that demands consideration. The "authority of training the militia" is by the Constitution of the United States expressly reserved to the States respectively. In another article of the Constitution it is declared that a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of a people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  - Missouri is a state in the Union. Her troops were in camp under a State law, in strict accordance with the Constitution of the United States, for training. It is not pretended that they had committed any unauthorized act. In this condition they were surrounded by a federal force, numbering six or seven times their number, forced to surrender, and their arms taken from them. It will be seen that in this movement of the Federal authorities the Constitution of the United States has been flagrantly violated in two essential particulars.


We do not see that the most despotic government of Europe could adopt measures more arbitrary in character, or more destructive of the fundamental rights of the people.

--
Here is a report of the St. Louis affair mentioned above.

The Constitution of the Confederate States

Another post based on the Covington Journal, this one of February 23, 1861.

The Constitution of the Confederate States
The New York Herald points out several particulars in which the Constitution of the Confederate States differs from the Constitution of the United States.

The old one commences with the words - "We the people of the United States &c., -  The new - "We the deputies of the Sovereign and Independent States of South Carolina, &c.," - thus distinctly indicating their sovereign and independent character, and yet their mutual reliance."


Again, the new constitution reverentially invokes "the favor of Almighty God." In the old, the existence of a Supreme Being appears to have been entirely ignored.


In the original not only has the word slave been omitted, but even the idea has been so studiously avoided as to raise grave questions concerning the intent of the several clauses in which the "institution" is a subject of legislation; while in the new the word "slaves" is boldly inserted, and the intention of its framers so clearly defined with reference to them, that there is hardly a possibility of misapprehension.


Again, contrary to the expectation of the majority of the Northern people, who have persistently urged that the object of the South, in establishing a separate Government was to re-open the African slave trade, the most stringent measures are to be adopted for the suppression of the trade.


And all has been done with a unanimity which indicates the harmony of sentiment that prevails among the people of the seceding States, and among the delegates by whom they were represented in the Southern Congress.

---
Clearly, the author does not try to hide the "intention of its framers" - especially since this article neglects to mentions items such as tariffs, yet finds a way to "boldly" insert comments about the particular "institution" that seems to have been more than a little bit important to those framers.


Also, I wonder how long it took before the author realized that the "unanimity" and "harmony of sentiment" that aided in the drafting of this Constitution were more mirages than long-term pieces of the Confederate experiment.

Another anniversary yesterday - US Constitution

Another anniversary happened yesterday as I was blogging on Abraham Lincoln in Cincinnati and others on the battle along Antietam Creek in Maryland - the Constitution of the United States of America was signed on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia.

Granted, it did not become official law for several months, when 9 of the states had ratified it, but the anniversary of its signing is certainly a day worth remembering and pondering.

Can you imagine a group of politicians with all their egos, ambitions and other motives gathering together to hammer out such an agreement to form a new nation? What an incredible feat that was.

The Constitution as is may not be perfect, may have its flaws, may not have settled all questions of government or all issues that came about, but it's still the best form of goverment known to man from what I have seen. No work of man will be without errors, and I'm sure every person who reads this wishes some clause or article or amendment could be changed, added, deleted or re-written, but for this agreement to hold up so well for over two centuries is a remarkable feat, showing just how remarkable that generation of men who put it together were.

Tom Brokaw may have called his own generation "The Greatest Generation" but the Founding Fathers of this nation, flawed as they were, deserve that label as much as anyone else, given their success in the Revolution and the formation of such a long-lasting governmental blueprint.