These Resolutions became the occasion of controversy, and
occupied public attention. They have been considered the
starting-point of Reconstruction, although the primary object
on their introduction was to strike at Slavery. The principle
here enunciated, that Slavery, being without support in
the Constitution or in natural right, fell with the local
governments on which it depended, seemed to Mr. Sumner
impregnable, and he never ceased to regret that it was not
authoritatively announced at an early day, believing that such
a juridical truth adopted by the Government would have smoothed
the way, while it hastened the great result. The essential
difficulty proceeded from the indisposition to Emancipation;
for here was only another form of the perpetual question,
“Shall the slaves be set free?”
Towards the close of the war, Mr. Everett, in an eloquent
speech at Faneuil Hall, gave his valuable authority in favor of
this principle.
“I will add, that it is very doubtful whether any act
of the Government of the United States was necessary to
liberate the slaves in a State which is in rebellion. There
is much reason for the opinion, that, by the simple act
of levying war against the United States, the relation of
Slavery was terminated, certainly so far as concerns the
duty of the United States to recognize it or to refrain
from interfering with it. Not being founded on the Law of
Nature, and resting solely on positive local law, and that
not of the United States, as soon as it becomes either
the motive or pretext of an unjust war against the Union,
an efficient instrument in the hands of the Rebels for
carrying on the war, a source of military strength to the
Rebellion and of danger to the Government at home and
abroad, with the additional certainty, that, in any event
but its abandonment, it will continue in all future time
to work these mischiefs, who can suppose it is the duty of
the United States to continue to recognize it? To maintain
this would be a contradiction in terms.… No such absurdity
can be admitted; and any citizen of the United States, from
the President down, who should by any overt act recognize
the duty of a slave to obey a Rebel master in a hostile
operation, would himself be giving aid and comfort to the
enemy.”[144]
Dr. Brownson’s judgment was the same way, as appears in a
citation on a subsequent page.
Besides the enunciation of this juridical truth, which,
frankly adopted, must have put an end to Slavery legally and
constitutionally in the Rebel States, the Resolutions further
asserted the jurisdiction of Congress over these States, and
the duty to establish republican government therein,--in other
words, the plenary power and duty of Reconstruction. Although
these were formally denied, yet the power was practically
recognized and the duty was followed, but only after injurious
delay and the conflict of debate.
The Resolutions were especially criticized, in the Senate and
out of it, for what was termed the doctrine of “State Suicide,”
and “the lapse of States into Territories.” They were described
as proposing to reduce States into Territories. Naturally, the
sentiment of State Rights was aroused.