From the Senate the question was transferred to the great arena
where pamphlets, reviews, and newspapers were the disputants.
Here the opposition in the Senate found frequent expression.
The Resolutions by their positive character offered a full
front, and they were openly attacked.
Public meetings and committees also made them the subject of
discussion,--especially a great meeting at Cooper Institute,
New York, and a meeting of the German Republican Committee in
New York, where they were fully sustained.[156]
The _North American Review_,[157] in an elaborate article,
under the title of “Constitutional Law,” afterwards published
in a pamphlet with the author’s name[158] on the title-page,
treated the Resolutions with a severity which may be judged by
the concluding words.
“It is to be hoped that disloyalty will not become
more general by reason of threats of conquest, or
by propositions that the United States shall become
_administrator de bonis non_ of the seceding States.
One description of treason against the United States
consists ‘in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort.’ Mr. Conway[159] and Mr. Sumner have given
the ‘aid and comfort.’ Had they sent in their _adhesion_
at the same time, they would have done the Union much less
mischief.”
Not content with this article, the learned author addressed the
following letter to the _Boston Journal_.
“UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION.
“DEAR SIR,--Will you permit me to say, that, the
sooner the Republican party cuts itself loose from
all unconstitutional projects (whether they relate to
emancipation by proclamation, conquering States and holding
them as Territories, confiscation without trial, or any
other measure not warranted by the Constitution), the
sooner it will begin to provide for its own salvation.
“Very truly yours,
“JOEL PARKER.
“CAMBRIDGE, May 5, 1862.”
On the other side, Dr. Brownson, the able and indefatigable
Catholic writer, sustained Mr. Summer in a powerful article,
entitled “State Rebellion, State Suicide.”[160] A few sentences
will show its character.
“The slave-owners, by their rebellion, have unquestionably
forfeited their right under the Federal Constitution to be
protected in their slave property, or, as to that matter,
in any other species of property. If Slavery be ever again
recognized as legal, therefore, the responsibility will
attach not to Slave States only, but to the whole people of
the United States, and we of the Free States will become,
clearly and decidedly, _participes criminis_.”[161]
“We hold with Mr. Sumner in his noble Resolutions,
creditable alike to him as a statesman and a lawyer, that
the State by rebellion commits suicide, and lapses as a
civil and political entity. All laws, customs, or usages,
depending for their vitality, force, or vigor on the State,
are rendered null and void by its secession, and are to be
treated as _non avenues_. Slavery exists in any country
only by municipal law,--in no country by the _jus gentium_.
In our political system it exists by the local law, or by
the law or usage of a particular State, in distinction from
a law or usage of the United States.”[162]
“The Rebellion, in a word, kills the whole State and
everything dependent on it. Whether the State be revived
and permitted to return to the Union depends entirely on
the good pleasure of the Federal authority. It cannot be
claimed as a right by the population on the territory of
the defunct State. As they could not take the territory
out of the Union, and as they, so long as they remain on
it, are within the jurisdiction of the United States,
the Federal Government has authority to govern them, and
may govern them either as a Territory or as a conquered
province.”[163]
“The two most important measures ever introduced into
the American Congress are, first, the resolutions of Mr.
Sumner in the Senate, declaring that a State by rebellion
commits suicide, and, second, General Ashley’s bill in
the House, from the Territorial Committee, providing for
the government of the rebellious States as Territories.…
Their adoption would save constitutional government, and
give new guaranties of man’s capacity for freedom. But
whether these measures be adopted or not, Mr. Sumner’s
resolutions will serve as a platform on which will take
their stand all in the country worthy of consideration for
their political sagacity, their wise statesmanship, their
disinterestedness, and their nobility of sentiment.”[164]
The newspapers were not behind the quarterlies in earnestness
of difference; but citations from them will not add to the
case already stated. An article in the _Temps_, an Imperialist
organ at Paris, is interesting, as showing that the debate had
crossed the ocean to France.
“The confidence of the nation possesses the Washington
Cabinet, too often accessible to incertitude and
discouragements, and its members seem about to rally to
the system presented by Mr. Sumner. It is known that the
Constitution gives to Congress the absolute power over what
is called the Territories,--that is to say, the territorial
portions not yet incorporated politically into the Union.…
The practical consequence which Mr. Sumner draws from that
can be divined. He proposes to consider the Rebel States
as simple Territories, which necessarily after victory
will return one after another to their vitality. Then,
according to the manner in which the Washington Government
and Congress shall pronounce definitively on this supreme
question, can admittance into the Union be refused to
States which do not abolish Slavery or regulate it in a
sense favorable to Abolition.”[165]