USA > Tennessee > History of the Twentieth Tennessee regiment volunteer infantry, C.S.A > Part 6
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42
Digitized by Google
61
SECESSION JUSTIFIED BY NORTHERN TESTIMONY
originated with Josiah Quincy and was a Massachusetts heresy.
This secession doctrine was first enunciated by Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts, in his opposition to the Louisiana purchase in 1803, when he said that if the bill passed, and the territory was admitted, the act would be a subversion of the Union, and the several States would be free from their Federal bonds and obliga- tions, and that as it will be the right of all the States, so it will be the duty of some to prepare definitely for a separation, peacea- bly if they can, violently if they must.
Also in 1803, Col. Timothy Pickering, a senator from Mas- sachusetts, complained of what he called "Oppression from Southern Democrats," and said: "I will not despair; I will rather anticipate a new Confederacy ; this can be accomplished without spilling one drop of blood. I have but little doubt it must begin with Massachusetts. The proposition would be wel- comed by Connecticut, and could we doubt of New Hampshire ? But New York must be associated, and how is her concurrence to be obtained ? She must be made the center of the Confed- eracy. Vermont and New Jersey would of course follow, and Rhode Island of necessity."
In 1839, John Quincy Adams, in a speech delivered in New York, said: " Far better will it be for the people of these disu- nited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by restraint."
This same ex-president from Massachusetts presented to Con- gress the first petition that was ever presented to that body for the dissolution of the American Union.
Mr. Wm. Rawls, a distinguished lawyer and jurist of Pennsyl- vania, said, in his work on the Constitution: "It depends on the State itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political systems are founded, which is that the people, in all cases, have a right to determine how they will be governed."
The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the Bank of Augusta against Earle, 13 Peters, pp. 590, 592, declared that the States were sovereign.
Digitized by Google
62
HISTORY OF THE TWENTIETH TENNESSEE REGIMENT
As late as 1844 the Legislature of Massachusetts attempted to coerce the President and Congress by the use of this language : " The project of the annexation of Texas, unless arrested on the threshold, may tend to drive these States (naming the New En- gland States) into a dissolution of the Union."
A short time after the nomination of Gen. Zachary Taylor for the Presidency, a petition was presented to the United States Senate, asking Congress to devise means for the dissolution of the Union, and the votes of Seward, Chase, and Hale were re- ceived in its favor.
There was a conservative element in the North who believed that the agitation against slavery was an invasion of the consti- tutional rights of the South, and among this number was Daniel Webster, the greatest Constitutional lawyer of his day, but they would not listen to him. See what he said in his great speech delivered at Buffalo, N. Y., May 22, 1851, from which we quote :-
" Then there was the fugitive slave law. Let me say a word about that. Under the provisions of the Constitution, during Washington's administration in the year 1793, there was passed by general consent a law for the restitution of fugitive slaves. Hardly any one opposed it at that period. It was thought to be necessary in order to carry the Constitution into effect. The great men of New England and New York all concurred in it. It passed and answered all the purposes expected from it until about the year 1841 or 1842, when the States interfered to make enactments in opposition to it. Now, I understand as a lawyer, and on my professional character do say to you, and to all, that the law of 1850 is decidedly more favorable to the fugitive slave than General Washington's law of 1793.
"Such is the present law, and, much opposed and maligned as it is, it is more favorable to the fugitive slave than the law en- acted during Washington's administration in 1793, which was sanctioned by the North as well as by the South. The present violent opposition has sprung up in modern times. From whom does this clamor come? Why, look at the proceedings of the anti-slavery conventions. Look at their resolutions. Do you find among those persons who oppose this fugitive slave law any admission whatever that any law ought to be passed to carry into effect the solemn stipulations of the Constitution ? Tell me any
Digitized by Google
63
SECESSION JUSTIFIED BY NORTHERN TESTIMONY
such case. Tell me if any resolution was adopted by the conven- tion at Syracuse favorable to the carrying out of the Constitu- tion ? Not one. The fact is, gentlemen, they oppose the consti . tutional provision. They oppose the whole. Not a man of them admits that there ought to be any law on the subject. They deny altogether that the provisions of the Constitution ought to be carried into effect. Look at the proceedings of the anti- slavery conventions in Ohio, Massachusetts, and at Syracuse, in the State of New York. What do they say? 'That so help them God, no colored man shall be sent from the State of New York back to his master in Virginia.' Do they not say that ? And to the fulfilment of that they pledge their lives, their for- tunes, and their sacred honor. Their sacred honor ! They pledge their sacred honor to violate the Constitution ; they pledge their sacred honor to commit treason against the laws of their coun- try."
Now also read what Mr. Webster said in another speech deliv- ered at Capron Springs, Va., a short time after his Buffalo speech : -
"The leading sentiment in the toast from the chair, is the union of the States. What mind can comprehend the conse- quences of that Union, past, present, and to come. The Union of these States is the all absorbing topic of the day. On it all men write, speak, think, and,dilate from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof. And yet, gentlemen, I fear its impor- tance has been but insufficiently appreciated."
Again Mr. Webster says : -
"How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest. I intend for one to regard, and maintain, and carry out to the fullest extent, the Constitution of the United States, which I have sworn to support in all its parts and all its provisions. It is written in the Constitution, 'No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis- charged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' "
Digitized by Google
64
HISTORY OF THE TWENTIETH TENNESSEE REGIMENT
" This is as much a part of the Constitution as any other, and as equally binding and obligatory as any other on all men, pub- lic or private. And who denies this? None but the abolition- ists of the North. And pray what is it they will not deny? They have but one idea, and it would seem that these fanatics and the Secessionists at the South are putting their heads to- gether to devise means to defeat the good designs of honest, pa- triotic men. They act to the same end and the same object, and the Constitution has to take the fire from both sides.
"I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the North- ern States refuse, wilfully and deliberately, to carry into effect ยท that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provides no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side and still bind the other. I say to you, gentlemen in Virginia, as I said on the shores of Lake Erie and in the city of Boston, as I may say in that city or elsewhere in the North, that you of the South have as much right to re- ceive your fugitive slaves as the North has to any of its rights or privileges of navigation or commerce."
Mr. Webster also said : -
"I am as ready to fight and to fall for the Constitutional rights of Virginia as I am for those of Massachusetts."
Horace Greely, the noted abolitionist, one of the foster-fathers, if not the parent, of free soilism, perhaps the most widely popu- lar and best informed of the Northern journalists, who must be regarded as an able exponent of the sentiments of the people, was outspoken even to rashness in upholding the doctrine of the right of secession. Indeed, his course would seem to prove that he did all in his power to hasten the Southern States into seces- sion. We will give some extracts from the "New York Tribune," Mr. Greely's paper, beginning with the date when it was first known that Mr. Lincoln was certainly elected : -
"If the Cotton States shall become satisfied 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."-N. Y. Tribune, Jan. 9th 1860.
And again in the same issue of his widely circulated and influ- ential paper, Mr. Greeley said :
. Digitized by Google
4
65
SECESSION JUSTIFIED BY NORTHERN TESTIMONY
" We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof. To withdraw from the Union is quite another matter, and whenever a consid- erable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope to never live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets. Let them have both sides of the ques- tion presented. Let them reflect, deliberate, then vote, and let the action of secession be the echo of an unmistakable popular fiat. A judgment thus rendered, a separation thus backed, would either be acquiesced in without the effusion of blood, or those who rushed upon carnage to defy and defeat it would place them- selves clearly in the wrong."
In the New York Tribune, Nov., 16th 1860, we find the follow- ing :
"Still we say in all earnestness and good faith, whenever a whole section of this republic, whether a half, a third or only a fourth, shall truly desire and demand a separation from the resi- due, we shall earnestly favor such a separation. If the fifteen slave states, or even the eight Cotton States alone, shall quietly, decisively, say to the rest, 'we prefer to henceforth be separated from you,' we shall insist they be permitted to go in peace. War is a hideous necessity at best, and a civil conflict, a war of es- tranged and embittered countrymen, is the most hideous of all wars. Whenever the people of the Cotton States shall have def- initely and decisively made up their minds to separate from the rest of us, we shall urge that the proper steps be taken to give full effect to their decision.
"Now we believe and maintain that the Union is to be pre- served only so long as it is beneficial and satisfactory to all par- ties concerned. We do not believe that any man, any neighbor- hood, town, county, or even state, may break up the Union in any transient freak of passion, we fully comprehend that seces- sion is an extreme, an ultimate resort-not a constitutional, but a revolutionary measure. But we insist that this Union shall not be held together by force whenever it shall have ceased to cohere by the mutual attraction of its parts, and whenever the Slave States or the Cotton States only shall unitedly and coolly say to the rest, 'we want to get out of the Union,' we shall urge that
Digitized by Google
66
HISTORY OF THE TWENTIETH TENNESSEE REGIMENT
their request be acceded to." N. Y. Tribune, Nov. 19th, 1860. "Some of the Washington correspondents telegraphed that Mr. Buchanan is attempting to map out a middle course to steer his. bark during the tempest which now howls about him. He is to condemn the asserted right of secession, but to assert in the same breath that he is opposed to keeping a State in the Union by what he calls Federal Coercion. Now we have no desire to prevent secession by coercion, but we hold this position to be utterly un- supported by law or reason .- N. Y. Tribune, Nov. 24th, 1860.
"Are we going to fight? - But if the Cotton States generally unite in seceding, we insist that they can not be prevented, and that the attempt must not be made. Five millions of people, more than half of them of the dominant race of whom at least half a million are able and willing to shoulder muskets, can never be subdued while fighting around and over their own hearth- stones. If they could be, they would no longer be equal mem- bers of the Union, but conquered dependencies."
"We propose to rest this potent engine from the disunionists by saying frankly to the Slave States, 'If you choose to leave the Union, leave it, but let us have no quarrel about it. If you think it a curse to you, and an unfair advantage to us, repudiate it, and see if you are not mistaken. If you are better by yourselves, go and God speed you. For our part, we have done very well with you, and are quite willing to keep along with you, but if the as- sociation is irksome to you, we have too much self respect to in- sist on its continuance. We have lived by our industry thus far and hope to do so still, even though you leave us.'
"We repeat that only the shean of the Northern bayonets can bind the South wholly to the evils of secession, but that may do it. Let us be patient, neither speaking daggers nor using them, standing to our principles but not to our arms, and all will yet be well."-N. Y. Tribune, Nov. 30th, 1860.
.
"We again avow our deliberate convictions that whenever six or eight contiguous states shall have formally seceded from the Union, and avowed the pretty unanimous and earnest resolve of their people to stay out, it will not be found practicable to coerce them into subjection, and we doubt that any Congress can be found to direct and provide for such coercion. One or two States may be coerced, but not the entire section or quarter of
Digitized by Google
67
SECESSION JUSTIFIED BY NORTHERN TESTIMONY
a Union. If you do not believe this, wait and see."-N. Y. Tri- bune, Dec., Ist, 1860.
" But if even seven or eight states send agents to Washington to say, 'We want to get out of the Union,' we shall feel con- strained by our devotion to human liberty, to say, 'Let them go.' And we do not see how we could take the other side with- out coming in direct conflict with those rights of man which .we hold paramount to all political arrangements, however convenient or advantageous."-N. Y. Tribune, Dec. 17th, 1860.
"Most certainly we believe that governments are made for the people, not people for the governments; that the latter derive their just power from the consent of the governed, and when- ever a portion of this Union large enough to form an independ- ent, self-subsisting nation shall show that and say authentically to the residue, 'We want to get away from you,' I shall say, and we trust self respect, if not regard for the principles of self gov- ernment, will restrain the residue of the American people to say, 'Go.'"-N. Y. Tribune, Dec. 24th, 1860.
"Nor is it treason for the States to hate the Union and seek its disruption. A State, a whole section, may come to regard the Union as a blight upon its prosperity, an obstacle to its progress, and be fully justified in seeking its dissolution. And in spite of the adverse clamor, we insist that if ever a third or even a fourth of these States shall have deliberately concluded that the Union is injurious to them, and that their vital interests require their separation from it, they will have a perfect right to seek separa- tion, and should they do so with reasonable patience and due re- gard for the rights and interests of those they leave behind, we shall feel bound to urge and insist that their wishes be gratified -their demand conceded."-N. ) . Tribune, Dec. 28, 1860.
In 1855, Benjamin F. Wade, a Senator from Ohio, said in a speech in the United States Senate : "Who is the " judge" in the last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the United States by the enactment of a law? Who is the arbiter, the General Government or the States in their sovereignty? Why, sir, to yield that point is to yield up all the rights of the States to protect their own citizens, and to consolidate this government into a miserable despotism." He was afterwards one of the most venemous of Southern haters. In 1860, Mr. Wade also
1
Digitized by Google
1
'68 HISTORY OF THE TWENTIETH TENNESSEE REGIMENT
said : "I do not so much blame the people of the South, be- cause I think they have been led to believe that we, to-day the dominant party (the Republican party), who are about to take the reins of government, are their mortal foes, and stand ready to trample their institution under foot."
President James Buchanan and his Attorney General, Jeremiah Black, of Pennsylvania, decided that there was no power under the Constitution to coerce a seceding State.
This Massachusetts heresy of secession was held in the North before the war, and in no uncertain tones since the war. In an article written by Benjamin J. Williams, a distinguished writer of Massachusetts, and published in the Lowell Sun of 1886, in which he said : "Died for their State. When the original thir- teen colonies threw off their allegiance to Great Britain, they became independent States, independent of her and of each other. The recognition was of the States separately, each by name, in the treaty of peace which ended the war of the Revolution."
And that this separate recognition was deliberate and inten- tional, with the distinct object of recognizing the States as sepa- rate sovereignties, and not as one nation, will sufficiently appear in the sixth volume of Bancroft's History of the United States.
The articles of Confederation between the States declared that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence ; and the Constitution of the United States, which immediately followed, was first adopted by the States in convention, each State acting for itself in its sovereign and independent capacity, through a convention of its people. And it was by this ratifica- tion that the Constitution was established between the States so ratifying the same. It is a compact between the States as sover- eigns, and the Union created by this Federal partnership is their common agent for the transaction of Federal business within the limits of the delegated powers.
This able writer also said, "Now if a partnership between persons is purely voluntary, and subject to the will of its mem- bers severally, how much more so is one between sovereign States, and it follows, that just as each, separately, in the exer- cise of its sovereign will entered the Union, so it may, separately in the exercise of that same will, withdraw therefrom.
1
Digitized by Google
1
69.
SECESSION JUSTIFIED BY NORTHERN TESTIMONY
And further, the Constitution being a compact to which the States are parties having no common judge, each party has a right to judge for itself, as well, infractions, as of the mode and measures of redress, as declared by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madi- son in the celebrated resolution of 1798-99, and the right of seces- sion irresistibly follows.
But aside from the doctrine of either partnership or compact, upon the grounds of State sovereignty, pure and simple does the right of State secession impregnably rest, this is what Mr. Ben- jamin J. Williams, a Massachusetts man, declared, 21 years after the close of the war.
Mr. Lodge of Massachusetts also said, "that when the com- pact was signed there was not a man in the country, with Wash- ington and Hamilton on the one side and Clinton and Mason on the other, but who believed that the new system was anything more than an experiment entered into by the States, and from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised.
Mr. Jas. A. Carter, an eminent lawyer of New York, but a native of New England made a speech at the University of Vir- ginia in 1898, in which he said, -"I may hazard the opinion that if the question had beeni made, not in 1860, but in 1788, immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, whether the Union formed by that instrument, could lawfully treat the seces- sion of a State as rebellion, and suppress it by force, few of those who participated in forming that instrument would have answered in the affirmative."
As a clincher to the right of secession, when the war was over, Mr. Davis was arrested and indicted three times in the Federal Courts, and kept in prison for three years, when Mr. Davis' counsel appeared before the 'bar that his enemies had selected and demanded a speedy trial which was refused time and again, until at last they consented to try the case. This court then de- clined to meet the real issues involved, before its own tribunal, because they were advised by the best lawyers and statesmen of the North, that the decision must go against the North and in favor of the South. So in order to evade the real issue, the Chief Justice, himself, suggested a technical bar to the prosecu- tion, which was adopted by the court and the case was dismissed.
Digitized by Google
70
HISTORY OF THE TWENTIETH TENNESSEE REGIMENT
This mock trial of President Jefferson Davis ought to satisfy any thinking mind of the Constitutional right of secession. If Mr. Davis had not had that right he would have been hung.
When our reader shall have corralled the facts set forth in this little volume, do you wonder that the Grand Army people would have the South keep silent about the facts of the war, and not teach the Southern Youth the truths for which their Father's fought?
We, of the South, deny that we began the war: it is true that we did fire the first gun, but did we not have more than sufficient provocation for doing so, when a hostile fleet was already on its way to attack us?
Now let us see what Mr. Hallum, the great Constitutional historian of England says, -" It is not the party who fires the first gun who begins a war, but it is the party who makes the firing of the first gun necessary." And we, of the South, say that the firing of the first gun at Sumpter was absolutely necessary.
When the Confederate Government was first organized, it sent three Commissioners to Washington to treat with Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, upon all questions growing out of the politi- cal situation and separation upon terms of amity and good will as the respective interests and future welfare of the two nations might render necessary. Although Mr. Seward refused to treat with the Confederate Commissioners directly, he did so through the medium of Justices Campbell and Nelson of the Supreme Court of the United States, and through them the Confeder- ate Commissioners were given to understand, that Fort Sump- ter would be evacuated within a few days, and they were kept under that impression from March 15, to April 7, 1861, by repeated assurances from Mr. Seward through Judges Campbell and Nelson, to the commissioners. Yet during these 23 days, a relief squadron was being fitted out to rein- force Fort Sumpter, and even on the last day when the squadron had received orders to sail, Mr. Seward wrote to Judge Campbell these words, "Faith as to Sumpter fully kept, wait and see." When he wrote this he knew at the time that he was misleading Justices Campbell and Nelson and deceiving the Confederate Commissioners and writing as un-
Digitized by Google
71
SECESSION JUSTIFIED BY NORTHERN TESTIMONY
qualified a falsehood as the Devil would have him write. This is all in keeping with the easterner, he will look you in the face and tell you of agreements, and when you turn your back he will chuckle in his sleeve to think you was such a fool as to believe him worthy of confidence.
Justice Campbell wrote two letters to Mr. Seward setting out all of the details of the deception and falsehood he had prac- ticed on the Confederate Commissioners through himself and Judge Nelson, and asked an explanation of the matter ; but no explanation ever came. He, W. H. Seward Secretary of State, had simply lied and that was all there was to it. Mr. Seward's memorandum made at the time showed that he was acting with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Lincoln all through this matter.
On February 6, 1861, before the peace Congress, Justice Chase, of the Supreme Court of the United States, said,-"The North- ern States will never fulfill their part of their constitutional obligation." (meaning the slavery question. ) This was said in defiance of decision after decision of the United States Supreme Court, and in knowing violation of the Constitution.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.