Newspaper Page Text
4
JiMßfSf.ili
REV. A. J. RYAN, Editor
AUGUSTA, GA., SEPT. 18, 1869.
ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS AND
BUSINESS LETTERS FOR THE “BAN
NER OF THE SCUTII” SHOULD BE
ADDRESSED TO THE PUBLISHERS -
L. T. BLOME & CO.
NO COMPROMISE.
“The mean spirit of Compromise seems
to be slowly, yet surely, gaining the as
cendency among too many of our peo
ple. Where that spirit rules honor dies.
Many of our public men who lead in
politics, more of our people who follow
such leaders, not a few of our journals that
care more for pa} r than for principle, are
growing daily more silent to the late
struggle—its rightfulness clear and cer
tain on our part—its iniquity as clear
and certain .on the part of the North;
and they are, consequently, growing
more and more willing to accept any and
everything that tends to 'perfect union
and reconstruction/ ”
We take the above from The Banner
of the South, of the 14th inst., pub
lished at Augusta, Georgia. We have
been a reader of the utterances of its
editor for a long time, and our de
liberate conviction is, that he has been
the “father” (he is commonly called
“Father Ryan,”) of more woes to the
South, than any one man in it. He is a
polished, able writer, and while he and
Brick Pomeroy have labored to the same
end, the style of the latter has been
popular with a class who could never
appreciate the beautifully rounded sen
tences of “Father Ryan.”
These two men are as wide apart in
the address which they use to attain their
objects as it is possible to be. There is
pathos in the sentences of the Banner,
clothed in language the most chaste and
classical, while, in Brick’s sentences,
there is the roughness of the gladiator,
mad witli passion, and intent only on
destruction. It is a matter, with us. of
extreme regret, that the holy office of the
ministry could find a Ryan, who, while
wearing the robes of his sacred calling,
yet could express the sentiments contain
ed in the extract which wc have given.
In the same article they are advised—
“To let their wounds remain ever open
—ever fresh—ever bleeding. Let the
eyes ol the rising generation gaze upon
them, and the hands of the coming gen
eration shall pour into them the only balm
that can heal them—the balm of Inde
pendence.”
Such counsel, from so respected a
source, has been most pernicious, and, in
his influence, and that of men of like
temper, we may fimPlhe cause of all the
South has endured since the close of the
war.
The equilibrium of States and nations,
and, indeed, of the world, has been pre
served by compromises. Without them
man would be but a brute and
the world a pandemonium. A conquered
people may consider themselves fortunate
if the conquerors will grant such terms
as they could consider a fair compro
mise. And the Federal Government
would gladly, a little while ago, have ad
mitted every Southern State back into
the Union, upon the adoption of the
13th and 14th amendments, but just such
passionate counsellors as the “Reverend
Father Ryan,” caused them to reject
them with scorn, and we have, as the
consequence, been compelled to drink of
a more bitter cup.
Papers of the order of the La Crosse
Democrat and the Banner of the
South, have made false lights, which
have nearly led us to destruction, but
they are now on the wane, and soon the
people will free themselves from the power
of such evil counsellors.
For ourselves, we lament that wc can
not obtain terms ts compromise such as
we could have a voice in making. But,
while we are powerless, it is the counsel
oi passion, with nothing of sense or rea
son, which tells us to reject all, because
we. cannot obtain just what we would
desire
Let u§ beware of mad advisers, and
follow the mellow light of prudence and
reason. Houstou {Texas,) Telegraph.
We wrote an article sometime ago, and
gave it to our readers in the Banner of
the South under the above title. We
didn’t expect it to meet the approval of
Radicals. We didn’t expect it to meet
the approval of time-servers and place
hunters. We didn't expect it to meet
the approval of tyrants and Government
officials. But little did we expect to
have it and this paper denounced by a
Democratic—and that a Southern—
journal ! This, however, is done; and
above we give the article entire to our
readers. Little do we care for the com
pliments paid to our language or our
“rounded sentences.” That is not what
wc labor for—what we write for. We
stand up to-day for Principles—for Right
against Wrong—for Truth against Error
—for Freedom against Tyranny. If we,
fortunately, use pleasing language, it is
because we use the language of Truth.
If we, fortunately, use “ rounded sen
tences,” it is because we use the sentences
of correct Principles. It is not the power
of our language, not the power of our pen,
that gives any force or “pathos” to what
we may say or write; but it is the power
of the Cause which wc advocate —the
powePof Principle—the power of Justice!
God helping us, we shall continue to use
this power, as we have used it in the
past, only regretting that our ability to
wield it is so limited. And, while so
using it, we shall pity and pray lor those
weak-minded, compromising, country
sacrificing Patriots, who would barter
away the rights and liberties of their
people to gain a delusive peace, or to
secure place and power in the State.
“ The equilibrium of States and Na
tions, and, indeed, of the world,” may
“ have been preserved by Compromises,”
but they have been compromises on
Principles and Right. The victim in
the clutches of the midnight assassin, may
compromise with his murderer by pur
chasing his life with gold, and he would
be blameless ; but if he should compro
mise with that murderer by permitting
the murder of his wife and children in his
stead, then, indeed, would he deserve exe
cration and malediction. The traveller
on the highway might compromise with
the Robber by giving him half of his
wealth, and he would be justified; but if
he compromised with him by joining the
Robber’s band, he would deserve repro
bation and punishment. The creditor
might compromise with his honest debtor,
by permitting him to pay just what he
was able; but if he compromised with
him by forcing him to pay such an
amount as would reduce him and his
family to penury and want, he would de
serve the scorn and contempt of his fellow
men. And yet these latter are the com
promises which some would ask us to
make, and denounce this journal and its
editor because they have the courage and
the honesty to warn our people against
them, to protest against them, to con
demn them. These are the Compromises
which wc disapprove—which we abhor
—which we condemn. These are the
kind of Compromises which would make
the fate of the South worse than that of
Poland, of Hungary, of Ireland. These
are the kind of Compromises which would
destroy our liberties forever, and estab
lish forever the despotism which now op
presses our unhappy land. It was “ this
mean spirit of Compromise” which sacri
ficed Principle and Justice, and sunk our
unhappy country in war, bloodshed, and
ruin. It is “ this mean spirit of Compro
mise” which has made some of our people
forsake their Country and their Princi
ples, and co-operate with the enemies of
both. Condemn it ! Yes ! we will con
demn it. We will denounce it. We will
denounce it with all the strength and
energy of our nature, and shall urge our
people to stand by us in the crusade, to
stand by their faith, to stand by their
Principles. The article of the Telegraph
is the best proof that we can offer of the
truth of our assertion, that the people of
the South are “growing more and more
willing to accept any and everything
that tends to ‘ perfect re union and re
construction.’ ” We say it with regret.
Hence the necessity for zeal and earnest
ness on the part of those who advocate
adherence to Principle, to stand by their
beloved South, and love the Lost Cause
for its glorious association and its grand
memories.
One of the Editors of the Telegraph
is an ex-Brigadier General of the Con
federate Army ! Can it be possible that
he should have indited the article to
which we are now referring ? Can it be
possible that men who sacrificed so much
for the cause of their dear sunny land,
should now, in the darkest hour of her
need, forgot the Cause, now lost, which
once was theirs and ours —forsake the
Principles typified by that conquered
banner, which, in its living days, they
loved so well to follow ? God forbid !
And so, pitying and praying for these
weak-spirited men, believing in the jus
tice of our Cause, and with a firm confi
dence in the honor and integrity of the
People of the South, we shall continue to
battle, as wc have ever done, against the
mean spirit of Compromise—against the
Compromise of Right—against the Com
promise of Principle; and, adopting the
language of our Texas cotemporary, we
say, as referring to all who would counsel
such Compromises : “ Let us beware of
mad advisers, and follow the mellow light
ot Prudence, and Reason,” guided by
Principles of Honor, Truth, and Justice.
The following’ extract from the New
York Herald , a journal never accused of
friendship for the Catholic church, we
commend to the attention of our readers:
“The future welfare of Catholicity is
largely bound up witli the future of this
Continent. We have a large Catholic
population. They are devoted to the
general cause with an enthusiasm which
is made patent to every stranger who visits
these shores; which our numerous
Catholic churches and schools abundantly
testify; which every American citizen
admits, and of which every Catholic is
proud. It was long the opinion that
Catholicity could not live, far less flour
ish, away from State patronage and con
trol. Long experience in Ireland, a
growing experience in England and
Scotland, and the history of the Catholic
Church in this country, have proved that
this opinion is entirely wrong. Contrary
to all Protestant teaching, Catholicity
has been found to be compatible with
free institutions. It is a fact that, not
withstanding the general disorganization
of the age, the wild rebellion everywhere
visible against Church tyranny, the Cath
olic Church is strong—stronger, perhaps,
than it has been since the Reformation—
so strong that it dares to meet in Gener
al Council. Church and State have
long since ceased to be a unit in the
principal British Colonies. Church and
State are being violently wrenched as
under in the British Isles. Church and
State have never been a unit in the
United States. But Catholicity grows
in England, gathers strength in Ireland,
becomes mighty in America. Political
lreedom, in spite of the theorists, does
not in any land cool the ardor or check
the growth of genuine Catholicity.”
DAVIS AND LEE;
OR, TILE REPUBLIC OF REPUBLICS.
An attempt to ascertain from the. Fed
eral Constitution, from the Acts of the
pre-existent States, and from the con
temporaneous exposition of the Fath
ers, the SOVEREIGNTY, CITIZENSHIP,
allegiance and treason of the Unit
ed States, the obligation of the Presi
dent's Constitutional Oath , and the
reasons why the trial of the Confed
erate Chiefs was evaded. . By one of
the Counsel of Jefferson Davis.
CHAPTER X.
federalization —( Continued .)
NEW YORK.
eleventh to ratify—vote, 30 to 27
DATE, JULY 26, 1788.
In the Convention of this State the
contest was long, severe, and doubtful,
principally turning upon the existence or
non-existence in the Constitution of the
principles now asserted by the Massa
chusetts school. These were then urged
as serious charges. Indeed, two of her
delegates, Yates and Lansing, had left
the Federal Convention because they
were “opposed to any system,” however
modified, which had in view the “consoli
dation of the United States into one
Government.” And as they feared the
system proposed by the Convention had
a tendency to that evil, they strove to
have it rejected by their State.
what her statesmen thought of the
SYSTEM.
The views taken, and the defence
made, by the Federalist of Massachusetts
were repeated in the Convention of New
York. The leading Constitutionists,
with masterly'' ability, refuted the said
charges, and showed that the States were
to be preserved intact, as the tery basis,
nay, as the “essential component parts
ol the L nion and were, as absolute
soverigns, then dividing the powers they
chose to delegate between their State
Governments and their Federal (or
leageal) one ; the subject then in hand
being the creation and endowment of the
latter by the compacting sovereign
States.
John Jay, the first Chief Justice under
the new Constitution, said, in his ad
dress to the people of New York, early
in 1788, to induce them to adopt the
new system : “The proposed government
is to be the Government of the people ;
all its officers are to be their officers, and
to exercise no rights but such as the
people commit to them. The Constitu
tion only serves to point out that part of
the people’s business which they think
proper by it to refer to the management
of the persons therein designated. These
persons are to receive that business to
manage, not for themselves, aud as their
own, but as the agents and overseers for
the people, to whom they are constantly
responsible, aud by whom they are to
be appointed.” In the same address to
the people of New York from which
these words are quoted, Mr. Jay said :
l 'The States of Georgia, Delaware, New
Jersey and Connecticut have adopted the
present plan ;” and he earnestly advises
the State of New York to do so. (i.
Ell Deb. 496.) In the ratifying Con
vention, Mr. Jay called the system pro
vided for in the compact, a “Union of
States ,” and said “the objects of the
General Government comprehended the
interests of the States , in relation to
each other and in relation to foreign
powers.” His view obviously was that
the States as sovereign bodies were com
pacting and creating a Governmental
agency, which was to remain subordinate
to them, and act as their servitor in “pro
viding for the common defence, and
promoting the general welfare.” (ii.
Ell. Deb. 282 et seg.)
Robert R. Livingston, the Chancellor
of the State, said iu the same Conven
tion : “A republic may very properly be
formed by a league of States; but the
laws of the general legislature must act
and be enforced upon individuals. I
am contending for this species of Govern
ment.” (ii. Ell. Deb. 274.)
He said further : “Wc,” (the people
of New York) must see that the power
we “entrust to our rulers be so placed
as to insure our liberties and the bless
ings of a well-ordered Government.”
And after stating the fact that the Ameri
can people were all agreed upon the
great principle of Government,” that
“all power is derived from the people,”
lie spoke as follows : “They consider the
State and Federal Governments as
different deposits of that power. In this
view, it is of little moment to them
whether the portion of it which they
must, for their own happiness, lodg’e in
their rulers be invested in the State
Governments only, or shared between
them and the councils of the Union. The
lights they reserve are not diminished,
and probably their liberty acquires ad
ditional security from the division.”
(ii. Ell. Deb. 210.) What people did he
mean t Who were dividing their powers
—delegating some and reserving others?
Os course, the people ot the State whose
Convention he was then addressing and
advising:.
Alexander Hamilton, in the same
Convention, characterized the new politi
cal system as “a Confederacy of States,
in which the supreme Legislature has
only general powers ; and the civil and
domestic concerns of the people are regu
lated by the laws of the several States.”
(ii. Ell. Deb. 353.) “While the Con-'
stitution continues to be read, and its
principles known, the States must, by
every rational man, be considered as
essential component parts of the Union.”
(Ibid, 304.) “The destruction of the
States must be at once apolitical suicide.
Can the National Government be guilty
of this madness?” (Ibid, 353.) “The
question of the division of powers be
tween the General and State Govern
ments is a question of convenience. It
becomes a prudential inquiry into the
proper objects of the two Governments.
This is the criterion by which we shall
determine the just distribution of powers.”
“We”— who ? “Determine” what ?
Evidently “the people” of New York, in
Convention, were determining “the just
distribution” of their “powers.” Hamil
ton was not “Godlike,” and hence did
not see “the Nation” then establishing a
“distribution of powers between this
their General Government and their
several State Governments.”
John Lansing, the chief opponent of
the new system, admitted, in the ratify
ing Convention, that the framers of the
Federal system designed the Senators “to
represent,” and “to protect, the sover
eignty of the several States ;” but he
charged and argued that the operation
and tendency of the system would be
contrary to the design. (Ibid. 0 89
RATIFICATION IN CONFIDENCE OF 4MP
MENTS. '
All their arguments, however
have been futile, but for the understand
ing that the dreaded danger would i
specially forefended by the* a,ne„d„,o,u
In the circular letter to the other
dated July 28. 1788, signed fe'
George Clinton, “by unanimous order of
the Convention,” it was stated the
“several articles” were “so exceptionable
to a majority of us, that nothing but ti e
fullest confidence of obtaining \ revision
* * * and an invincible reluctance t,
separating from our sister States, could
have prevailed upon a sufficient number
to ratify it without stipulation f ur pre .
vious amendments.” (ii Kll n v
418.) V Dub
And the Convention, in the very act
of ratifying the Constitution, did “de
clare and make kuown” the following"
among d4 articles, declaratory of the
understanding of New York •
. L “That all power is originally vested
in, and, consequently, derived from, the
people; and that Government is institu
ted by them for their common interests
protection and security.”
111. That the powers ol Government
may be reassumed by the people, when
soever it shall become necessary to their
happiness ; that every power, jurisdic
tion and right, which is not, by the said
Constitution, clearly delegated to the
Congress of the United States, or the
departments of the Government thereof,
remains to the people of the several
States, or to their respective States
Governments, to whom they may have
granted the same ; and that those clauses
in the said Constitution, which declare
that Congress shall not have or exercise
certain powers, do not imply that Con
gress is entitled to any powers not given
by the said Constitution, but such clauses
are to be construed either as exceptions
to certain specified powers, or, as in
serted for greater caution.” (i. Ell Deb
327.)
What people were then “delegating
power” for “their happiness” and “securf
ty ?” The people of the State, of course.
By what people, then, was the power at
that moment being “delegated,” to be
reassumed” when “necessary to their
happiness ?” The Nation “re-assuming”
power “delegated” -by the State is a
gross solecism, and by this single sen
tence the whole argument against the
right of secession is scattered to the
winds !
DECISIVE PROOF THAT “WE THE rEOPLE”
MEANS NEW YORK.
To conclude the case of New York, I
quote the ordaining words of her act of
ratification, and beg the reader to reflect
that there is no breath ot Federal exis
tence, or shade of Federal power, in New
York, except what comes therein by
virtue of these words :
“We, the Delegates of the People
of the State of New York, duly elected
and met in Convention, having maturely
considered the Constution of the United
States of America ; * * * in the name
AND BEHALF OF THE REOPLE OF THE STATE
of New York, do, by these presents,
ASSENT TO AND RATIFY THE SAID CONSTI
TUTION.”
In the body of the ordinance, and as
a part thereof, the Convention declare
that they ratify, with the understanding
that “the rights aforesaid cannot be
abridged or violated that “the explana
tions” made are consistent with the Con
stitution and that they do it in confi
dence that the amendments “proposed"
will receive an early and mature con
sideration. The ratification was carried
by a majority of 3 in a membership o;
57. Suppose Dane, Story and Webster
had been there, to talk of the Nation or
aggregate sovereign people “distributing
their powers between their State
Governments and their General Govern
ment”—the said Nation sovereign and
the States subordinate—why, they would
have been hooted at, and the Federal
plan spurned from the Convention !
Here is the decisive act of the politi
cal body called New York, “assenting
to and ratifying” the Constitution, with
her own free and absolute will precisely
as any sovereign State of Europe would
have given her assent to any agreement
with coequal States. This ordinance is
the only possible act of sovereign au
thorityputting in force in New York
the Federal compact, and its resultant
Government. It was the will of New
York, and not that of any Nation, that
then and there made and finished the
“supreme law.” From her, and her
sister sovereigns, the Government then
received its existence, its status, and the
power it was to exercise in trust for the
common defence and the general wel
fare.” It is absurd to suppose this dele
gated authority could ever become coei
cive authority over the sovereigns, princi
pals, and masters that had delegated it ;
or to suppose that such authority did not