secession of South Carolina: "If it [the Declaration of Independence] justifies the secession from the British Empire of three millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not some one attempt to show wherein and why? For our own part, while we deny the right of slaveholders to hold slaves against the will of the latter, we cannot see how twenty millions of people can rightfully hold ten, or even five, in a de

tested Union with them by military force. * * * If

seven or eight contiguous States shall present themselves authentically at Washington, saying, 'We hate the Federal Union; we have withdrawn from it; we give you the choice between acquiescing in our secession and arranging amicably all incidental questions on the one hand and attempting to subdue us on the other,' we could not stand up for coercion, for subjuga tion, for we do not think it would be just. We hold the right of self-government even when invoked in behalf of those who deny it to others. So much for the question of principle."

In this course the "Tribune" persisted from the date of Mr. Lincoln's election until after his inauguration, employing such remarks as the following: "Any attempt to compel them by force to remain would be contrary to the principles enunciated in the immortal Declaration of Independence, contrary to the fundamental-ideas on which human liberty is based."

Even after the cotton States had formed their confederacy, and adopted a provisional Constitution at Montgomery, on the 23d February, 1861, it gave them encouragement to proceed in the following language: "We have repeatedly said, and we once more insist, that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, is sound and just; and that if the Slave States, the Cotton States, or the Gulf States only, choose to form an independent nation, THEY HAVE A CLEAR MORAL RIGHT TO DO SO. Whenever it shall be clear that the great body of Southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it, WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO FORWARD THEIR VIEWS.”

In a similar spirit, leading Republicans everywhere scornfully exclaimed, "Let them go;" "We can do better without them;""Let the Union slide," and other language of the same import.

In addition to all these considerations, the persistent refusal of Congress, from the first until the last hour of the session of 1860–261, to take a single step in preparing for armed resistance to the execution of the laws, served to confirm the cotton States in the opinion that they might "depart in peace."

The people of the cotton States, unfortunately for themselves, were also infatuated with the belief, until the very last moment, that in case they should secede they would be sustained by a large portion if not the whole Democratic party of the North. They vainly imagined that this party, which had maintained their constitutional rights whilst they remained in the Union, would sustain them in rebellion after they had gone out of it. In this delusion they were also greatly encouraged by sympathy and support from influential and widely circulated AntiRepublican journals in the North, and especially in the city of New York.

It was in vain, therefore, that the late President warned them, as he often did, against this delusion. It was in vain he assured them that the first cannon fired against either Fort Moultrie or Fort Sumter would arouse the indignant spirit of the North-would heal all political divisions amongst the Northern people, and would unite them as one man in support of a war rendered inevitable by such an act of rebellion.

ON THE EVE OF THE REBELLION.

IBRARY

OF TRE

2

CITY OF AN 99

CHAPTER V.

General Scott's "Views," and the encouragement they afforded to the cotton States to secede―Their publication by him in the "National Intelligencer"-His recommendation in favor of four distinct Confederacies-His recommendation to reenforce nine of the Southern forts, and the inadequacy of the troops-The reason of this inadequacy-The whole army required on the frontiers-The refusal of Congress to increase it—Our fortifications necessarily left without sufficient garrisons for want of troops-The President's duty to refrain from any hostile act against the cotton States, and smooth the way to a compromise-The rights of those States in no danger from Mr. Lincoln's election-Their true policy was to cling to the Union.

SUCH, since the period of Mr. Lincoln's election, having been the condition of the Southern States, the "Views" of General Scott, addressed before that event to the Secretary of War, on the 29th and 30th October, 1860, were calculated to do much injury in misleading the South. From the strange inconsistencies they involve, it would be difficult to estimate whether they did most harm in encouraging or in provoking secession. So far as they recommended a military movement, this, in order to secure success, should have been kept secret until the hour had arrived for carrying it into execution. The substance of them, however, soon reached the Southern people. Neither the headquarters of the army at New York, nor afterwards in Washington, were a very secure depository for the "Views," even had it been the author's intention to regard them as confidential. That such was not the case may be well inferred from their very nature. Not confined to the recommendation of a military movement, by far the larger portion of them consists of a political disquisition on the existing dangers to the Union; on the horrors of civil war and the best means of averting so great a calamity; and also on the course which their author had

resolved to pursue, as a citizen, in the approaching Presidential election. These were themes entirely foreign to a military report, and equally foreign from the official duties of the Commanding General. Furthermore, the "Views" were published, to the world by the General himself, on the 18th January, 1861, in the "National Intelligencer," and this without the consent or even previous knowledge of the President. This was done at a critical moment in our history, when the cotton States were seceding one after the other. The reason assigned by him for this strange violation of official confidence toward the President, was the necessity for the correction of misapprehensions which had got abroad, "both in the public prints and in public speeches," in relation to the "Views."

The General commenced his "Views" by stating that, "To save time the right of secession may be conceded, and instantly balanced by the correlative right on the part of the Federal Government against an interior State or States to reëstablish by force, if necessary, its former continuity of territory." He subsequently explains and qualifies the meaning of this phrase by saying: "It will be seen that the 'Views' only apply to a case of secession that makes a gap in the present Union. The falling off (say) of Texas, or of all the Atlantic States, from the Potomac South [the very case which has since occurred], was not within the scope of General Scott's provisional remedies." As if apprehending that by possibility it might be inferred he intended to employ force for any other purpose than to open the way through this gap to a State beyond, still in the Union, he disclaims any such construction, and says: "The foregoing views eschew the idea of invading a seceded State." This disclaimer is as strong as any language he could employ for the purpose.

To sustain the limited right to open the way through the gap, he cites, not the Constitution of the United States, but the last chapter of Paley's " Moral and Political Philosophy," which, however, contains no allusion to the subject.

The General paints the horrors of civil war in the most gloomy colors, and then proposes his alternative for avoiding them. He exclaims: "But break this glorious Union by what

ever line or lines that political madness may contrive, and there would be no hope of reuniting the fragments except by the laceration and despotism of the sword. To effect such result the intestine wars of our Mexican neighbors would, in comparison with ours, sink into mere child's play.

"A smaller evil" (in the General's opinion) "would be to allow the fragments of the great Republic to form themselves into new Confederacies, probably four."

Not satisfied with this general proposition, he proceeds not only to discuss and to delineate the proper boundaries for these new Confederacies, but even to designate capitals for the three on this side of the Rocky Mountains. We quote his own language as follows:-"All the lines of demarcation between the new unions cannot be accurately drawn in advance, but many of them approximately may. Thus, looking to natural bounda ries and commercial affinities, some of the following frontiers, after many waverings and conflicts, might perhaps become acknowledged and fixed:

"1. The Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay to the Atlantic. 2. From Maryland along the crest of the Alleghany (perhaps the Blue Ridge) range of mountains to some point on the coast of Florida. 3. The line from, say the head of the Potomac to the West or Northwest, which it will be most difficult to settle.. 4. The crest of the Rocky Mountains.”

"The Southeast Confederacy would, in all human probability, in less than five years after the rupture, find itself bounded by the first and second lines indicated above, the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, with its capital at say Columbia, South Carolina. The country between the second, third, and fourth of those lines would, beyond a doubt, in about the same time constitute another Confederacy, with its capital at probably Alton or Quincy, Illinois. The boundaries of the Pacific Union are the most definite of all, and the remaining States would constitute the Northeast Confederacy, with its capital at Albany. It, at the first thought, will be considered strange that seven slaveholding States and part of Virginia and Florida should be placed (above) in a new Confederacy with Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, etc. But when the overwhelming weight of the great Northwest is