THE FIRST SESSION OF CONGRESS.
Opening of Congress--President’s First Message--Its Nature--
Action of Congress--Resolution Declaring the Object of the War--
Bull Run--Its Effect.
The first session of Congress during Mr. Lincoln’s Administration
commenced on the 4th of July, 1861, in pursuance of his call to that
effect. The following message was transmitted from the Executive:
“FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES:--Having been convened on an extraordinary
occasion, as authorized by the Constitution, your attention is not
called to any ordinary subject of legislation. At the beginning
of the present Presidential term, four months ago, the functions
of the Federal Government were found to be generally suspended
within the several States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida, excepting only those of the
Post-office Department.
“Within these States, all the Forts, Arsenals, Dock-Yards,
Custom-Houses, and the like, including the movable and stationary
property in and about them, had been seized, and were held in open
hostility to this Government, excepting only Forts Pickens, Taylor
and Jefferson, on and near the Florida coast, and Fort Sumter in
Charleston harbor, South Carolina. The forts thus seized had been
put in improved condition, new ones had been built, and armed
forces had been organized, and were organizing, all avowedly with
the same hostile purpose.
“The forts remaining in possession of the Federal Government in
and near these States were either besieged or menaced by warlike
preparations, and especially Fort Sumter was nearly surrounded by
well-protected hostile batteries, with guns equal in quality to the
best of its own, and outnumbering the latter as, perhaps, ten to
one--a disproportionate share of the Federal muskets and rifles had
somehow found their way into these States, and had been seized to
be used against the Government.
“Accumulations of the public revenue lying within them had been
seized for the same object. The navy was scattered in distant seas,
leaving but a very small part of it within the immediate reach of
the Government.
“Officers of the Federal Army had resigned in great numbers, and of
those resigning a large proportion had taken up arms against the
Government.
“Simultaneously, and in connection with all this, the purpose to
sever the Federal Union was openly avowed. In accordance with this
purpose an ordinance had been adopted in each of these States,
declaring the States respectively to be separated from the National
Union. A formula for instituting a combined Government of those
States had been promulgated, and this illegal organization, in
the character of the ‘Confederate States,’ was already invoking
recognition, aid and intervention from foreign powers.
“Finding this condition of things, and believing it to be an
imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if
possible, the consummation of such attempt to destroy the Federal
Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable. This
choice was made and was declared in the Inaugural Address.
“The policy chosen looked to the exhaustion of all peaceful
measures before a resort to any stronger ones. It sought only to
hold the public places and property not already wrested from the
Government, and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on
time, discussion, and the ballot-box. It promised a continuance
of the mails, at Government expense, to the very people who were
resisting the Government, and it gave repeated pledges against
any disturbances to any of the people, or any of their rights, of
all that which a President might constitutionally and justifiably
do in such a case; every thing was forborne, without which it was
believed possible to keep the Government on foot.
“On the 5th of March, the present incumbent’s first full day in
office, a letter from Major Anderson, commanding at Fort Sumter,
written on the 28th of February, and received at the War Department
on the 4th of March, was by that Department placed in his hands.
This letter expressed the professional opinion of the writer,
that reinforcements could not be thrown into that fort within the
time for its relief rendered necessary by the limited supply of
provisions, and with a view of holding possession of the same,
with a force less than twenty thousand good and well-disciplined
men. This opinion was concurred in by all the officers of his
command, and their memoranda on the subject were made inclosures
of Major Anderson’s letter. The whole was immediately laid before
Lieutenant-General Scott, who at once concurred with Major Anderson
in his opinion. On reflection, however, he took full time,
consulting with other officers, both of the Army and Navy, and at
the end of four days came reluctantly but decidedly to the same
conclusion as before. He also stated at the same time that no such
sufficient force was then at the control of the Government, or
could be raised and brought to the ground, within the time when the
provisions in the fort would be exhausted. In a purely military
point of view, this reduced the duty of the Administration in the
case to the mere matter of getting the garrison safely out of the
fort.
“It was believed, however, that to so abandon that position, under
the circumstances, would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity
under which it was to be done would not be fully understood; that
by many it would be construed as a part of a voluntary policy; that
at home it would discourage the friends of the Union, embolden
its adversaries, and go far to insure to the latter a recognition
abroad; that, in fact, it would be our national destruction
consummated. This could not be allowed. Starvation was not yet upon
the garrison, and ere it would be reached, Fort Pickens might be
reinforced. This last would be a clear indication of policy, and
would better enable the country to accept the evacuation of Fort
Sumter as a military necessity. An order was at once directed to
be sent for the landing of the troops from the steamship Brooklyn
into Fort Pickens. This order could not go by land, but must take
the longer and slower route by sea. The first return news from the
order was received just one week before the fall of Sumter. The
news itself was that the officer commanding the Sabine, to which
vessel the troops had been transferred from the Brooklyn, acting
upon some quasi armistice of the late Administration, and of the
existence of which the present Administration, up to the time the
order was dispatched, had only too vague and uncertain rumors to
fix attention, had refused to land the troops. To now reinforce
Fort Pickens before a crisis would be reached at Fort Sumter, was
impossible, rendered so by the near exhaustion of provisions at the
latter named fort. In precaution against such a conjuncture the
Government had a few days before commenced preparing an expedition,
as well adapted as might be, to relieve Fort Sumter, which
expedition was intended to be ultimately used or not, according
to circumstances. The strongest anticipated case for using it was
now presented, and it was resolved to send it forward as had been
intended. In this contingency it was also resolved to notify the
Governor of South Carolina that he might expect an attempt would
be made to provision the fort, and that if the attempt should not
be resisted there would be no attempt to throw in men, arms or
ammunition, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon
the fort. This notice was accordingly given, whereupon the fort
was attacked and bombarded to its fall, without even awaiting the
arrival of the provisioning expedition.
“It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort
Sumter, was in no sense, a matter of self-defense on the part of
the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could
by no possibility commit aggression upon them; they knew they were
expressly notified that the giving of bread to the few brave and
hungry men of the garrison was all which would, on that occasion,
be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should
provoke more. They knew that this Government desired to keep the
garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintain
visible possession, and thus to preserve the Union from actual and
immediate dissolution; trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time,
discussion, and the ballot-box for final adjustment, and they
assailed and reduced the fort, for precisely the reverse object,
to drive out the visible authority of the Federal Union, and thus
force it to immediate dissolution; that this was their object the
Executive well understood, having said to them in the Inaugural
Address, ‘You can have no conflict without being yourselves the
aggressors.’ He took pains not only to keep this declaration
good, but also to keep the case so far from ingenious sophistry
as that the world should not misunderstand it. By the affair at
Fort Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point was
reached. Then and thereby the assailants of the Government began
the conflict of arms--without a gun in sight, or in expectancy,
to return their fire, save only the few in the fort sent to that
harbor years before, for their own protection, and still ready
to give that protection in whatever was lawful. In this act,
discarding all else, they have forced upon the country the distinct
issue, immediate dissolution or blood, and this issue embraces more
than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole
family of man the question whether a Constitutional Republic or
Democracy, a Government of the people, by the same people, can or
can not maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic
foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals,
too few in numbers to control the Administration according to
the organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made
in this case, or any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any
pretense, break up their Government, and thus practically put an
end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask, ‘Is
there in all republics this inherent and fatal weakness?’ ‘Must
a Government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its
own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?’ So viewing
the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the
Government, and so to resist the force employed for its destruction
by force for its preservation. The call was made, and the response
of the country was most gratifying, surpassing, in unanimity and
spirit, the most sanguine expectation. Yet none of the States,
commonly called Slave States, except Delaware, gave a regiment
through the regular State organization. A few regiments have
been organized within some others of those States by individual
enterprise, and received into the Government service. Of course
the seceded States so called, and to which Texas had been joined
about the time of the inauguration, gave no troops to the cause of
the Union. The Border States, so called, were not uniform in their
action, some of them being almost for the Union, while in others,
as in Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas, the Union
sentiment was nearly repressed and silenced. The course taken in
Virginia was the most remarkable, perhaps the most important. A
Convention, elected by the people of that State to consider this
very question of disrupting the Federal Union, was in session at
the capitol of Virginia when Fort Sumter fell.
“To this body the people had chosen a large majority of professed
Union men. Almost immediately after the fall of Sumter many members
of that majority went over to the original disunion minority, and
with them adopted an ordinance for withdrawing the State from the
Union. Whether this change was wrought by their great approval
of the assault upon Sumter, or their great resentment at the
Government’s resistance to that assault, is not definitely known.
Although they submitted the ordinance for ratification to a vote of
the people, to be taken on a day then somewhat more than a month
distant, the Convention, and the Legislature, which was also in
session at the same time and place, with leading men of the State,
not members of either, immediately commenced acting as if the State
was already out of the Union. They pushed military preparations
vigorously forward all over the State. They seized the United
States Armory at Harper’s Ferry, and the Navy Yard at Gosport,
near Norfolk. They received, perhaps invited into their State,
large bodies of troops, with their warlike appointments, from the
so-called seceded States.
“They formally entered into a treaty of temporary alliance with the
so-called Confederate States, and sent members to their Congress
at Montgomery, and finally they permitted the insurrectionary
Government to be transferred to their capitol at Richmond. The
people of Virginia have thus allowed this giant insurrection to
make its nest within her borders, and this Government has no
choice left but to deal with it where it finds it, and it has the
less to regret as the loyal citizens have, in due form, claimed
its protection. Those loyal citizens this Government is bound to
recognize and protect as being in Virginia. In the Border States,
so called, in fact the Middle States, there are those who favor
a policy which they call armed neutrality, that is, an arming of
those States to prevent the Union forces passing one way or the
disunion forces the other, over their soil. This would be disunion
completed. Figuratively speaking, it would be the building of an
impassable wall along the line of separation, and yet not quite an
impassable one, for under the guise of neutrality it would tie the
hands of the Union men, and freely pass supplies from among them,
to the insurrectionists, which it could not do as an open enemy. At
a stroke it would take all the trouble off the hands of secession,
except only what proceeds from the external blockade. It would do
for the disunionists that which of all things they most desire,
feed them well, and give them disunion, without a struggle of their
own. It recognizes no fidelity to the Constitution, no obligation
to maintain the Union, and while very many who have favored it are
doubtless loyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very injurious in
effect.
“Recurring to the action of the Government, it may be stated that
at first a call was made for seventy-five thousand militia, and
rapidly following this, a proclamation was issued for closing the
ports of the insurrectionary districts by proceedings in the nature
of a blockade. So far all was believed to be strictly legal.
“At this point the insurrectionists announced their purpose to
enter upon the practice of privateering.
“Other calls were made for volunteers, to serve three years, unless
sooner discharged, and also for large additions to the regular
army and navy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were
ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and a
public necessity, trusting then, as now, that Congress would ratify
them.
“It is believed that nothing has been done beyond the
constitutional competency of Congress. Soon after the first call
for militia it was considered a duty to authorize the commanding
general, in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; or, in other words,
to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes
and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to
the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised,
but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of
what has been done under it are questioned, and the attention of
the country has been called to the proposition, that one who is
sworn to take care that the laws be faithfully executed should not
himself violate them. Of course some consideration was given to
the questions of power and propriety before this matter was acted
upon. The whole of the laws, which were required to be faithfully
executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution in nearly
one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of
execution, even had it been perfectly clear that, by use of the
means necessary to their execution, some single law, made in such
extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty that practically it
relieves more of the guilty than the innocent, should, to a very
great extent, be violated? To state the question more directly, are
all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself
to go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case
would not the official oath be broken, if the Government should be
overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law
would tend to preserve it?
“But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was
not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the
Constitution, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or
invasion, the public safety may require it, is equivalent to a
provision that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of
rebellion or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was
decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public
safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of
the writ, which was authorized to be made. Now, it is insisted
that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power.
But the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to
exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a
dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed that the framers of the
instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its
course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling
of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case by the
rebellion. No more extended argument is now afforded, as an opinion
at some length will probably be presented by the Attorney-General.
Whether there shall be any legislation on the subject, and if so,
what, is subject entirely to the better judgment of Congress.
The forbearance of this Government had been so extraordinary,
and so long continued, as to lead some foreign nations to shape
their action as if they supposed the early destruction of our
National Union was probable. While this, on discovery, gave the
Executive some concern, he is now happy to say that the sovereignty
and rights of the United States are now everywhere practically
respected by foreign powers, and a general sympathy with the
country is manifested throughout the world.
“The reports of the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and the
Navy, will give the information, in detail, deemed necessary and
convenient for your deliberation and action, while the Executive
and all the Departments will stand ready to supply omissions or to
communicate new facts considered important for you to know.
“It is now recommended that you give the legal means for making
this contest a short and decisive one; that you place at the
control of the Government for the work, at least 400,000 men and
$400,000,000; that number of men is about one-tenth of those of
proper ages within the regions where apparently all are willing to
engage, and the sum is less than a twenty-third part of the money
value owned by the men who seem ready to devote the whole. A debt
of $600,000,000 now is a less sum per head than was the debt of our
Revolution when we came out of that struggle, and the money value
in the country bears even a greater proportion to what it was then
than does the population. Surely each man has as strong a motive
now to preserve our liberties, as each had then to establish them.
“A right result at this time will be worth more to the world than
ten times the men and ten times the money. The evidence reaching us
from the country, leaves no doubt that the material for the work
is abundant, and that it needs only the hand of legislation to
give it legal sanction, and the hand of the Executive to give it
practical shape and efficiency. One of the greatest perplexities
of the Government is to avoid receiving troops faster than it
can provide for them; in a word, the people will save their
Government if the Government will do its part only indifferently
well. It might seem at first thought to be of little difference
whether the present movement at the South be called secession or
rebellion. The movers, however, well understand the difference. At
the beginning they knew that they could never raise their treason
to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation
of law; they knew their people possessed as much of moral sense,
as much of devotion to law and order, and as much pride in its
reverence for the history and government of their common country,
as any other civilized and patriotic people. They knew they could
make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble
sentiments. Accordingly they commenced by an insidious debauching
of the public mind; they invented an ingenious sophism, which, if
conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps through all the
incidents of the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism
itself is that any State of the Union may, consistently with the
nation’s Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully,
withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any
other State.
“The little disguise that the supposed right, is to be exercised
only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its
justice, is too thin to merit any notice with rebellion. Thus
sugar-coated, they have been drugging the public mind of their
section for more than thirty years, and until at length they have
brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against
the Government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted
the farcical pretence of taking their State out of the Union, who
could have been brought to no such thing the day before. This
sophism derives much, perhaps the whole of its currency, from the
assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy
pertaining to a State, to each State of our Federal Union. Our
States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to
them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having
been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the
Union before they cast off their British Colonial dependence,
and the new ones came into the Union directly from a condition
of dependence, excepting Texas, and even Texas, in its temporary
independence, was never designated as a State. The new ones
only took the designation of States on coming into the Union,
while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the
Declaration of Independence. Therein the United Colonies were
declared to be _free_ and _independent_ States. But even then
the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one
another of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual
pledge and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterward,
abundantly show. The express plight of faith by each and all of
the original thirteen States in the Articles of Confederation two
years later that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive.
Having never been States either in substance or in name outside
of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of State rights,
asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself?
Much is said about the sovereignty of the States, but the word
even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed,
in any of the State constitutions. What is sovereignty in the
political sense of the word? Would it be far wrong to define it a
political community without a political superior? Tested by this,
no one of our States, except Texas, was a sovereignty, and even
Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which
act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States; and
the laws and treaties of the United States, made in pursuance
of States, have their status in the Union, made in pursuance of
the Constitution, to be for her the supreme law. The States have
their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status.
If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by
revolution. The Union and not themselves, separately procured
their independence and their liberty by conquest or purchase. The
Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it
has. The Union is older than any of the States, and, in fact, it
created them as States. Originally, some dependent Colonies made
the Union, and in turn the Union threw off their old dependence for
them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever
had a State constitution independent of the Union. Of course it is
not forgotten that all the new States formed their constitutions
before they entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon, and
preparatory to coming into the Union. Unquestionably the States
have the powers and rights reserved to them in and by the National
Constitution.
“But among these surely are not included all conceivable powers,
however mischievous or destructive, but at most such only as
were known in the world at the time as governmental powers, and
certainly a power to destroy the Government itself had never
been known as a governmental, as a merely administrative power.
This relative matter of National power and State rights as a
principle, is no other than the principle of generality and
locality. Whatever concerns the whole should be conferred on the
whole General Government, while whatever concerns only the State
should be left exclusively to the State. This is all there is of
original principle about it. Whether the National Constitution,
in defining boundaries between the two, has applied the principle
with exact accuracy, is not to be questioned. We are all bound
by that defining without question. What is now combatted is the
position that secession is consistent with the Constitution, is
lawful and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express
law for it, and nothing should ever be implied as law which leads
to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased with money
the countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is
it just that they shall go off without leave and without refunding?
The nation paid very large sums in the aggregate, I believe nearly
a hundred millions, to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes.
Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without
any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the
benefit of these so-called seceding States, in common with the
rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the
remaining States pay the whole? A part of the present National debt
was contracted to pay the old debt of Texas. Is it just that she
shall leave and pay no part of this herself? Again, if one State
may secede, so may another, and when all shall have seceded none
is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did
we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their
money? If we now recognize this doctrine by allowing the seceders
to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do if others
choose to go, or to extort terms upon which they will promise
to remain. The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of
secession. They have assumed to make a National Constitution of
their own, in which, of necessity, they have either discarded or
retained the right of secession, as they insist exists in ours. If
they have discarded it, they thereby admit that on principle it
ought not to exist in ours; if they have retained it, by their own
construction of ours that shows that to be consistent, they must
secede from one another whenever they shall find it the easiest way
of settling their debts, or effecting any other selfish or unjust
object. The principle itself is one of disintegration, and upon
which no Government can possibly endure. If all the States save one
should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is
presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny
the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State
rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being
called driving the one out, should be called the seceding of the
others from that one, it would be exactly what the seceders claim
to do, unless, indeed, they made the point that the one, because
it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they
are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are
subtle, and profound in the rights of minorities. They are not
partial to that power which made the Constitution, and speaks
from the preamble, calling itself, ‘We, the people.’ It may be
well questioned whether there is to-day a majority of the legally
qualified voters of any State, except, perhaps, South Carolina, in
favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union
men are the majority in many, if not in every one of the so-called
seceded States. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any
one of them. It is ventured to affirm this, even of Virginia and
Tennessee, for the result of an election held in military camps,
where the bayonets are all on one side of the question voted upon,
can scarcely be considered as demonstrating popular sentiment. At
such an election all that large class who are at once for the Union
and against coercion would be coerced to vote against the Union. It
may be affirmed, without extravagance, that the free institutions
we enjoy have developed the powers and improved the condition of
our whole people beyond any example in the world. Of this we now
have a striking and impressive illustration. So large an army as
the Government has now on foot was never before known, without a
soldier in it but who has taken his place there of his own free
choice. But more than this, there are many single regiments whose
members, one and another, possess full practical knowledge of all
the arts, sciences, professions, and whatever else, whether useful
or elegant, is known in the whole world, and there is scarcely one
from which there could not be selected a President, a Cabinet, a
Congress, and perhaps a Court, abundantly competent to administer
the Government itself. Nor do I say this is not true also in the
army of our late friends, now adversaries, in this contest. But
it is so much better the reason why the Government which has
conferred such benefits on both them and us should not be broken
up. Whoever in any section proposes to abandon such a Government,
would do well to consider in deference to what principle it is that
he does it. What better he is likely to get in its stead, whether
the substitute will give, or be intended to give so much of good
to the people. There are some foreshadowings on this subject.
Our adversaries have adopted some declarations of independence
in which, unlike our good old one penned by Jefferson, they omit
the words, ‘all men are created equal.’ Why? They have adopted a
temporary National Constitution, in the preamble of which, unlike
our good old one signed by Washington, they omit, ‘We, the people,’
and substitute, ‘We, the deputies of the sovereign and independent
States.’ Why? Why this deliberate pressing out of view the rights
of men and the authority of the people? This is essentially a
people’s contest. On the side of the Union it is a struggle for
maintaining in the world that form and substance of Government
whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men, to lift
artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of
laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a
fair chance in the race of life, yielding to partial and temporary
departures from necessity. This is the leading object of the
Government for whose existence we contend.
“I am most happy to believe that the plain people understand and
appreciate this. It is worthy of note that while in this, the
Government’s hour of trial, large numbers of those in the army
and navy who have been favored with the offices, have resigned
and proved false to the hand which pampered them, not one common
soldier or common sailor is known to have deserted his flag. Great
honor is due to those officers who remained true despite the
example of their treacherous associates, but the greatest honor
and the most important fact of all, is the unanimous firmness
of the common soldiers and common sailors. To the last man, so
far as known, they have successfully resisted the traitorous
efforts of those whose commands but an hour before they obeyed as
absolute law. This is the patriotic instinct of plain people. They
understand without an argument that the destroying the Government
which was made by Washington means no good to them. Our popular
Government has often been called an experiment. Two points in
it our people have settled: the successful establishing and the
successful administering of it. One still remains. Its successful
maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow
it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those
who can fairly carry an election, can also suppress a rebellion;
that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets,
and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided,
there can be no successful appeal except to ballots themselves
at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace,
teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can
they take by a war, teaching all the folly of being the beginners
of a war.
“Lest there should be some uneasiness in the minds of candid
men as to what is to be the course of the Government toward the
Southern States after the rebellion shall have been suppressed,
the Executive deems it proper to say it will be his purpose then,
as ever, to be guided by the Constitution and the laws, and that
he probably will have no different understanding of the powers
and duties of the Federal Government relatively to the rights
of the United States and the people under the Constitution than
that expressed in the Inaugural Address. He desires to preserve
the Government that it may be administered for all, as it was
administered by the men who made it. Loyal citizens everywhere have
a right to claim this of their Government, and the Government has
no right to withhold or neglect it. It is not perceived that in
giving it there is any coercion, conquest or subjugation in any
sense of these terms.
“The Constitution provided, and all the States have accepted the
provision, ‘that the United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican form of government,’ but if a State
may lawfully go out of the Union, having done so, it may also
discard the Republican form of Government. So that to prevent its
going out is an indispensable means to the end of maintaining the
guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the
indispensable means to it are also lawful and obligatory.
“It was with the deepest regret that the Executive found the duty
of employing the war power. In defence of the Government forced
upon him, he could but perform this duty or surrender the existence
of the Government. No compromise by public servants could in this
case be a cure, not that compromises are not often proper, but
that no popular government can long survive a marked precedent,
that those who carry an election can only save the Government
from immediate destruction by giving up the main point upon which
the people gave the election. The people themselves and not their
servants can safely reverse their own deliberate decisions.
“As a private citizen the Executive could not have consented that
these institutions shall perish, much less could he, in betrayal
of so vast and so sacred a trust as these free people had confided
to him. He felt that he had no moral right to shrink, nor even to
count the chances of his own life in what might follow.
“In full view of his great responsibility, he has so far done
what he has deemed his duty. You will now, according to your own
judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views and
your actions may so accord with his as to assure all faithful
citizens who have been disturbed in their rights, of a certain and
speedy restoration to them, under the Constitution and laws; and
having thus chosen our cause without guile, and with pure purpose,
let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear and with
manly hearts.
“July 4, 1861. ABRAHAM LINCOLN.”
This document, it will be observed, sets forth in temperate language
the facts bearing upon the rebellion in its then stage--facts so stated
that the common people could readily comprehend the exact situation of
affairs. Such a message, always in place, was never more needed than at
a juncture when--as seemed not altogether impossible to many--an appeal
might yet have to be made again and again to the great mass of the
people for men and money to maintain the unity of the nation. It may
be safely asserted, that the messages of none of our Presidents have
been so generally read and so thoroughly mastered by the average mind,
as those of Mr. Lincoln, himself the tribune of the people.
Congress granted five hundred millions in money, and directed a call
for five hundred thousand volunteers for the army; made provisions
for a popular national loan; revised the tariff; passed a direct tax
bill; adopted measures, moderate in their scope, for the confiscation
of rebel property; legalized the official acts of the President during
the emergency in which the country had been placed; and the House
of Representatives, with but two dissentients, passed the following
resolution:
“_Resolved, By the House of Representatives of the Congress of the
United States_, That the present deplorable civil war has been
forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States,
now in revolt against the Constitutional Government, and in arms
around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress,
banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect
only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged
on our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of
conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of authorizing or interfering
with the rights or established institutions of the States, but
to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to
preserve the Union, with all the dignities, equality, and rights of
the several States unimpaired, and that as soon as these objects
are accomplished the war ought to cease.”
On the 21st of July, the Army of the Union, under the direct command
of General McDowell, and the general supervision of the veteran
Scott--from whose onward movement against the rebels in Virginia
so much had been expected--met with a serious reverse at Bull Run.
They went forth, exulting in victory as certain; they came back a
panic-stricken mob. For an instant, despondency took possession of
every loyal heart; all manner of vague fears seized the people;
Washington would be captured; the cause was lost.
It was but for an instant, however. The rebound came. Washington which
might easily have been captured and sacked, had the rebels known how to
improve their success, was securely fortified and amply garrisoned. One
did not then comprehend what now the most concede--that Bull Run was a
necessary discipline--a school in which all learned somewhat--though,
unfortunately, not all of us as much as we should. That came later.