Newspaper Page Text
% lounuil prbotcii to f|c fitievests of tljc Catholic Chun!) tit the Coiifcircrato .States.
\ M ITT F * Ct L Ar> IU M TIT IT M I N VAGT NA M E T ID EIT S pAO 1 8 Elt 1 T TE<P M. l ’
YOL. I.
A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE
INTERESTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IN' THE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
And containing, in addition to Catholic
intelligence from all parts of the world,
Tales, Poetry, (general News, and Miscel
laneous Articles.
Published every Saturday Morning
• ft
AT THE ‘FOLLOWING BATES t
Ono Copy One Year ... sls 00
One Copy Six Months - - - 800
Duo Copy Three Months - - 5 00
Single Copies - - - - - 0 50
. I liberal discount made to the Trade.
& taj.oaiE,
Editors and Publishers.
ADVERTISING RATES.
Transient Advertisements, Five Dollars per
Square of Ten Lines.
A liberal deduction trill he made to those
who advertise by the month.
An Address to the People of the
United States in Behalf of Peace.
BY A CATHOLIC DIVINE.
Fdloto Christians and Friends :
hi times of extraordinary peril, it is
the duty of all, even of the humblest
individual, to attempt everything that
might possibly remove or alleviate ex
isting evils, and be conducive to gen
eral peace and prosperity. The cruel
war that has changed America, for
merly so prosperous, into a bloody
field and a heap of smoking ruins, is a
misfortune of so great magnitude that
I would not let the opportunity of a
new Catholic paper issued to the world
pass away without giving expression
to some views suggested by theology,
upon the justice of the war, in the
hope of doing some good. I wish to
submit to the reflection and meditation
of thinking people both North and
South some plain and, in my opinion,
irresistible arguments, showing that
the war, and particularly the. contin
uation of the war, against the Southern
States, is unjust, unbecoming and ruin
ous. I claim no other authority than
that of reason and sound argument;
and I may add that, being a French
man by birth. I am more apt to be
unprejudiced by party spirit. I. have,
I hope, no other party than that of
truth, no other motive than the love of
justice, and no other ambition than
that of doing good to all, and of pro
moting peace, harmony and love
among all men. I have spent more
than a quarter of a century in the
North and a few years in the South,
and 1 think I have had a good oppor
tunity of becoming tolerably well ac
quainted with persons and things oh
both sides of flic lines.
The questions which I intend to
present to your consideration in this
address are included in this short
theme of the ancients, which every
titan of sense ought to premise to arty
important undertaking: An liceatJ
n.n. decent ? an expediat ? Is it lawful ?
is it becoming? is it expedient? Is
the course, we pursue sanctioned by
justice, decency and utility? Let us
apply this to the war, and particular
ly the continuation of it until the sub
jugation and extermination of the
AiutlT. Let us begin with the first
point, the most important, its justice.
War is unquestionably lawful on some
occasions, as all divines and writers
on international law admit, against
some sectarians and false philanthro
pists, defenders of an U topia, at variance
with the present state of mankind.
War ntay, therefore, be lawful: but.
all admit that it requires a just cause.
A war without a just cause ac
cumulation of the greatest crimes that
can be conceived; it is a wholesale
butchery, robbery and a concentration
of every species of injustice impossible
to enumerate. Is the war now raging
between the two sections of the country
just, and on which side is justice
found ?
!»ivines remark that, on some occa
sions, a war may be just on both sides.
This must happen in cases where a
reasonable doubt exists concerning a
right of great importance. Minds
will embrace different opinions, and if
there he no tribunal to decide, as is the
case with regard to nations, recourse
to arms is almost inevitable, as each
j side will defend its right, which it
j construes as favorable to itself. This
| is precisely tin- case with regard to
1 North arid South. The Constitution of
j the States .originally united has a radi
j cal defect and vice, which has been
! the first cause and the remote source
! ot the torrent of blood which deluges
{ the land. The Constitution does not
| say, or at least does not say clearly,
l where the supreme authority resides,
| whether in the separate States that
j have formed the Union, or in the Gov
ernment resulting front that Union;
and, lienee, there have been two opin
ions coeval with the Constitution itself
concerning this supreme and., para
mount sovereignty. We will content
ourselves with quoting the nature of
this difficulty and doubt, from the The
ology of Doctor Kenrick, late Arch
bishop of Baltimore. Archbishop Ken
rick was a man of eminent learning, a
profound theologian, a keen observer,
j and he was well acquainted with au
thors who have treated of these mat
ters of international law and the laws
of war. He had read Grotius, Puffert
dorf, Barbeyrae and Vattel. The ex
tract given here was written before the
present war (in T 841), consequently,
his mind could not have been biased
by the present bloody struggle. These
are his words, translated fiom the Latin
original: “Whether the individual
United States are absolutely bound by
the laws of Congress, is. vehemently
controverted. Some there are who
hold that it is the business of the sep
arate States to judge whether Con
gress, in passing them, has not ex
ceeded the bounds of the power en
trusted to it, and has not neglected
the interests of some States, and in
that case to declare such laws null and
void of all effect within their territory ;
others, on the contrary, affirm that till
the States, n« well as the single citizen,
are hound by those laws, since the
power from which they emanate flows
from the people. If there be a doubt
whether Congress has abused its
power, there is a remedy left; the
controversy must be brought before
the Supreme Court, which they main
tain to be the interpreter of the Con
stitution and laws, with supreme au
thority, by whose decision they say all
are bound, the States as well as the
citizens. But if some State finds it
self injured thereby, it cannot violate
the Constitution by resisting it or the
law: but the amendment of the Con
stitution will have to be awaited for
which requires the consent of three
fourths of all the States. In this
Very grave controversy which lately
has not been without the danger
of a civil war, each citizen may follow
the opinion that seems to him more
correct, or if the doubt remains, each
one is at liberty to obey the power
placed over him, for he would not be.|
bound til his own great danger andj
risk, tottoosist authority in this dubious!
‘case.”— Theol. J [oral., Vol. 1, pp\
It is, therefore, dubious and con
troverted where the supreme au
thority lies, and afiter all the arguing
and wrangling and dis] uting about
this matter, upon which for so many
years so much has been said, it
(remains doubtful. The North has
(decided one way and the South another
way. There the matter stands. All
the Hash of artillery has not thrown
a particle of light upon the question,
and the roar of the cannon has added
no strength to the arguments on either
side.
From this We conclude that if the
South had acted merely on the abstract
right of secession and in close adhe
sion to the doctrine of the original
sovereignty of the States, there would
have been justice, or a shadow of jus
tice, on both sides, in the inauguration
of the war. But the case is not this;
and wc find that the North had actually
■dissolved the Union by the Acts of
their Legislatures. It is undeniable
[that some years ago a law called the
Fugitive Slave Law was passed by
Congress, authorizing any master to
recover his slave in any place and
State to which he might have fled.
This was called the Clay Compromise,
and it quieted the nation for a while
after it had been fermenting from the
everlasting cause of agitation—slavery.
That law was enforced soon after, in
Boston, upon a fugitive slave, and
although the fanaticism of many was
robsed to the highest pitch, still the
AUGUSTA, GA., OCTOBER 8, 1864.
law was executed by the proper
j authorities. It is another fact, equally
( incontestible that soon after Northern
j Legislatures passed so-called Personal
| [Liberty bills, setting at defiance the
Itiuthority of Congress, arid imposing a
jifine and imprisonment on the master
who would attempt to recover his
fugitive slave. This legislation, wh’ch
was adopted by a great many North
ern States, was an actual and evident
rebellion against the laws of Congress;
I and it was an act severing the original
compact of the States, and releasing
j the other members of the Union from
any obligation to the refractory por
tions of it. This rebellion of the
Northern Legislatures cannot lie de
nied. Hence, Buchanan, in his last
message, admitted the fact—declared
these laws of the Legislatures uncon
stitutional, and asked for their repeal,
though lie contented himself with
saying that they were null and void, as
being against the laws of Congress.
All this siiows that the Union was
virtually dissolved. The Northern
.Legislatures passed laws contrary to
(lie laws of the Union, and against all
ho interests of the South. The Gene
ral Government was hound to resist ;
and it was against these revolutionary
attempts of the North that blockades
ought to have been ordered, and
armies levied, to maintain the suprema
cy of the laws. This was not done,
• and therefore the South was released j
from all obligations to the North, which
had become tin unjust aggressor of
the common laws. The compact
uniting the States together was, tbereK j
fore, virtually dissolved, and when thej |
South proclaimed publicly that sepa-ii
ration, it did but exercise a plain right,\j
in self defence, against unjust aggres-l
sors. Tell rue, my friends, what j
would be your decision in the follow
ing case submitted to your arbitration ?
Five merchants enter into an associa
tion for mercantile purposes, and
draw up by-laws to direct the com
pany. Three of these merchants vio
late these by-laws and agreements, and
wish to govern the company without
any reference to those by-laws. Are
the other two merchants bound to
remain in the firm, although they are i
only two against three? You will say, I
no; unless you wish to repudiate lea- j
son and justice. You would, then,
authorize the two merchants to with
draw their capital and all their
interests from the concern : and if the !
others, because they are three against
two, would keep them forcibly in it, I
and attempt, besides, to consummate j
the entire ruin of the two, you would j
declare that conduct au inexcusable j
robbery and unjustifiable violence. \
Apply the example and the conclusion j
to yourselves in your present struggle I
with the South.
i You will tell me, perhaps, that slavery j
is against the law of God, and must be j
put down. I answer, therefore, you
ought not to have associated your- I
selves with slaveholders; and it !
Vis a double wrong in you to have !
►formed the association, and then to
have broken it, and now that it. is
broken to shed torrents of blood in
order to form it again upon principles
of your own coining. If you find that
slaveholding is against the" law of God,
quit the society of slaveholders—let
them alone—and let all manage their
own concerns \n peace. But it is false,
supremely false, that slavery, properly
understood and properly conducted, is
against the law of God. This, how
ever, is not the argument under con
sideration now, although it will be
presented to your consideration on ,
some other occasion.
The reasons given above show that, j
if the South had separated itself I
from the Union on the abstract right
of secession, founded on the sover
eignty of the individual States,
and merely for the sake of pro
moting her own political and com
mercial interests, her step could be
defended as not conflicting with jus
tice, and the most that could be alleged
would be that her right was doubtful,
as would he the right of the North to
urge a continuation of the Union ; but, j
under the actual circumstances in
which the country was placed, the
North had been the aggressor, and had
broken the Union by enacting laws in
their Legislatures directly and openly
at variance with the fundamental com
pact of the Union. /
But there is another consideration
! on this matter of great importance,
j and of great weight on the question
of the justice of the war, and chiefly
| the continuation of the war at this
(stage of events. Writers on the Taws
I of nations, and Catholic Divines, make
a vast distinction between a defen
sive war and an offensive and ag
! gressive war. The case speaks fc
itself. A defensive was may become
j very#easily just, or rather, it is just of
j itself. A man is attacked; he may
! defend himself; it his right, his in
alienable right. But an offensive war
I is not so easily just, and wo to those
who engage in it without strong and
adequate motives ; they become guilty
of awful crimes, not, perhaps, in the
eyes of men, who look little into them'
matters, but in the eyes of justice and
of religion, or rather of God, the
author and avenger of justice and re
ligion. Success in such a war, and
brilliant victories may, perhaps, elicit
the. applause of the world, but cannot
alter the nature of the 'case. Such a
war remains an injustice, an atrocity,
and a frightful accumulation of mur
ders, awaiting retributive justice in the
next world, in spite'of all the military ■
laurels that may have been won.
An offensive war requires a cause
not only probably or dubiously just,
but a cause that is certainly and evi
dently just. A defensive war with a
dubious cause is just. I am in my
house; you pretend to have a right to
it. It may require all the sagacity of
a .learned judge, all the wisdom of a
Solomon, to decide the dubious case.
j If you come to dislodge me from mv
I house I have the right to defend niv
! self; you are .certainly wrong in as
j saulting me; you are guilty of injus
tice; you give me just cause to repel
Lyour attack at all hazards; and you
also incur the strict obligation of re
pairing all the damages that will be
the result of your rash attack.
This, my friends, becomes a pow
erful reason for you to pause and
! examine whether your right is certain,
I indubitable and evident. In ease of
j dotjbt you are bound to desist from a
I war which, on your part, is eminently
! aggressive and offensive, chiefly now
! that your armies have invaded a great
i part of Southern territory, and when
j they seem to fie bent on its subjuga
tion, and even the extermination of its !
people. On the part of the South’ the
war is a defensive one. The first bat
tle was fought on the soil of Virginia,
and was nothing more than repelling
an invasion : and for this reason (name
ly, that the war on the part of the
South is only a defensive one, no doubt)
it was that the President of the Con
federacy would not allow the army to
march then on Washington, which
might have been easily taken and
destroyed. Although I am no judge
;of military operations, as I was in
Washington soon after, from what I
saw and heard there, I think I do
not make in this a rash statement,
I want to quote to on '
the justice of a war. JYie following is
taken from, a ..fext/Viook on Theology;
and is from a titan who is now dead
and could not h/ve been biased on the
present questi/i. It is Bishop Bou-!
vier, and his*remarks ’only embody j
what other wrßcrs have said, and what j
must he couriered as an axiom or j
self-evident j/uth. lie speaks of an
offensive w# in case of dubious right,
and he deciles that the assailed party
may defenl itself' on this principle :
“ in dllbio iielior ext conditio possiden
tis.” “In fa.se of doubt, the possessor
has the benefit of the doubt.” And
then lie jidds : “ If, however, even
with the presumption expressed by the
aforesaid ixiom, there remains a doubt
which cannot, be cleared, the two
parties should convene together in
sincerity! and good faith: but if one
would reject all settlement, the other
would be justifiable in vindicating its
right by force of arms.” The book
is written in Latin.— Bolivia's Instil.
Theol., vol. 5, p. 40.
Archbishop Kenrick, on the same
question, speaks thus : “.An offensive
war, besides a just cause, requires
public authority. A just cause is
always required, which many Divines
teach must be absolutely certain; for
indeed on account only of seemingly
true reasons it is not lawful to disturb
the tranquility of nations and bring
on the calamities of war.”— Vul. 1. v.
240.
Here is, then, the plain duty of the
j belligerents : They must resort to con
j ferenoe and negotiations, but if one
J refuses that expedient he forfeits all
; his right, and gives a just cause of
j war to the other party, on account of
; its stubbornness and unwillingness to
i listen to an accommodation and to
!,i ustice. Apply this to the present war.
I Commissioners were sent by she South,
I and they would not even’be listened
| to. Furthermore, and this has stamped
the Federal cause with the broad seal
of injustice, France has offered her
mediation, and it was rejected by the
Cabinet of Washington, as if they did
not doubt that, might was right. ’ The
war then becomes clearly and evidently
unjust on the part of the North, and
till the frightful consequences of an
unjust war weigh on the guilty heads
of the authors, abettors, and promot
ers of it.
But you tell me the Union must be
maintained at all hazards; we fight
for the Union. It is in this your error
lies, my friends. The Union must
not be maintained at all hazards.
It must not be maintained against
justice—-justice passes before every
thing else—//u? justitia mat endian. It
is doubtful in itoelf whether those who
formed the Union originally cannot
use this right of sovereignty and dis
solve that Union. •> The* original pact is
silent about this. It has r becn inter
preted both ways by great minds.
But the Union is broken, and you, my
friends of the North, have broken
it. If you wanted to maintain Union
at all hazards you ought to have oppo
sed the Legislatures that annulled the
Fugitive Slave law; opposed John
Brown’s raid; opposed Abolitionism.
The General Government ought to
have sent armies and fleets against the
States that denied its sovereignty and
assailed its laws. Your action on this
occasion has exhibited the real secret
that moved you ; though, after all, this
exuberant zeal for the Union is mere
■ superstition and fanaticism, because
the Union is for men, and not men for
the Union. The Union was a yohm
tary association of States, and mot a
leonina societas —an association with r.
lion—in.which the stronger party will
claim the' first, the second, the third,
and the last portion of the spoils.
There is a Union tlfat God himself has
.sanctioned and of which He has said:
“ hat God lias joined together let no
man put asunder.” It is the union of
man and wife by matrimony; you
break that union by granting divorce,
even often upon trifling causes; and you
will now contend that a voluntary union
of States which has npt tested iet a cen
tury, which has been hitherto held by
all as an experiment*only, Cannot ad
mit of divorce. “*A wejpjit and a
weight is an abtimination ; tfi the Lord.”
Urov. 20, 23. You must, indeed be
blindfolded if you.do no s see that you
use here a double weight, and this
hallucination is somutdi the more in
conceivable as you aijlmit the right, of
isr Union was founded, and assuredly
that rSgelit would he it hitter mockery,
if the ojipsagsor wfe left the juflge of
the justice of ttiU claim in the oppress
ed to vindicate tlhoir rights.
But again, you will tell me the in
terests of the North require that it
should lie united with the South, and
the welfare country requires
there should lx/but one flag over the
whole of it. \
But, my frjenw, do you not see the
fallacy of this argument? You as
sume that your interest constitutes
justice. This is luSachiavelism, not.
Christianity. The South tells you, also,
that her interest required that she should
be separated from the NcVth. If interest
constituted justice, the riqh man might,
appropriate to himself t\e yard and
house of his poor neighbor);as it is his
interest to enlarge his preihises. Do
you say also that might is riVht? The
unity of the flag over very Extensive
countries becomes an impossily lit}', but
at any rate it issubservient ancksecond
ary to justice. Would it nob’be a
ridiculous theory that there must be
but one flag over the whole of North
America? Why do you not try this
theory first on Canada ? It is a
chimera, as well as the notion of
natural boundaries to States.
I have now another important con
sideration on the justice of the war.
A war which would otherwise be just
may become unjust by the way in
which it is carried on, and become
NO. 1.