604 



PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



awaiting the arrival of the provisioning expe- 

 dition. 



It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction 

 of Fort Surater was iu no sense a matter of self-defence 

 on the part of th assailants. They well knew that the 

 garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit 

 aggression upon them. They knew they were ex- 



Eressly notified that the giving of bread to the few 

 rave and hungry men of the garrison was all which 

 would on that occasion be attempted, unless them- 

 selves, by resisting so much, should provoke more. 

 They knew that this Government desired to keep the 

 garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to 

 maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve the 

 Union from actual and immediate dissolution trust- 

 1112, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the 

 ballot-box for final adjustment; and they assailed and 

 reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object to 

 drive out the visible authority of the Federal Union, 

 and thus force it to immediate dissolution. That this 

 was their object the Executive well understood ; and 

 having said to them in the inaugural address, " You 

 can have no conflict without being yourselves the ag- 

 gressors," he took pains not only to keep this declara- 

 tion good, but also to keep the case so free from the 

 power of ingenious sophistry that the world should 

 not be able to misunderstand it. By the affair at Fort 

 Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point 

 was reached. Then and thereby the assailants of the 

 Government began the conflict of arms, without a gun 

 iu. sight or in expectancy to return their fire, save only 

 the few in the fort, sent to that harbor years before for 

 their owa protection, and still ready to give that pro- 

 tection in whatever was lawful. In this act, discard- 

 ing all else, they have forced upon the country the 

 distinct issue, " immediate dissolution or blood." 



And this issue, embraces more than the fate of these 

 United States. It presents to the whole family of man 

 the question, whether a constitutional republic or de- 

 mocracya government of the people by the same 

 people can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity 

 against its own domestic foes. It presents the ques- 

 tion, whether discontented individuals, too few in num- 

 bers in control administration, according to organic 

 law, in any case, cau always, upon the pretences made 

 in this case, or on any other pretences, or arbitrarily, 

 without any pretence, break up their Government, and 

 thus practically put an end to free government upon 

 the earth. It forces us to ask, " Is there, in all repub- 

 lics, this inherent and fatal weakness?" "Must a 

 Government, of necessity, be too strong for the liber- 

 ties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own 

 existence?" 



So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call 

 out the war power of the Government; and so to re- 

 sist force employed for its destruction, by force for its 

 preservation. 



The call was made, and the response of the country 

 was most gratifying, surpassing in unanimity and spirit 

 the moat sanguine expectation. Yet none of the States 

 commonly called slave States, except Delaware, gave 

 a regiment through regular State organization. A few 

 regiments have been organized within some others of 

 those States by individual enterprise, and received into 

 the Government service. Of course, the seceded States, 

 so called, (and to which Texas had been joined about 

 the time of the inauguration.) gave no troops to the 

 cause of the Union. The border States, so called, were 

 not uniform in their action, some of them being almost 

 for the Union, while in others as Virginia, North Car- 

 olina, Tennessee, and Arkansas the Union sentiment 

 was nearly repressed and silenced. The course taken 

 in Virginia was the most remarkable perhaps the 

 most important. A convention, elected by the people 

 of that State to consider this very question of disrupt- 

 ing the Federal Union, was in session at the capital of 

 Virginia when Fort Sumter fell. To this body the 

 people had chosen a large majority of professed Union 

 men. Almost immediately after the fall of Sumter, 

 many members of that majority went over to the orig- 

 inal disunion minority, and with them adopted an or- 



dinance for withdrawing the State from the Union. 

 Whether this change was wrought by their great 

 approval of the assault upon Sumter, or their great 

 resentment at the Government's resistance to that as- 

 sault, is not definitely known. Although they sub- 

 mitted the ordinance for ratification to a vote of the 

 people, to be taken on a day then somewhat more than 

 a month distant, the convention and the Legislature, 

 (which was also in session at the same time and place,) 

 with leading men of the State, not members of either, 

 immediately commenced acting as if the State were 

 already out of the Union. They pushed military prep- 

 arations vigorously forward all over the State. They 

 seized the United States armory at Harper's Ferry, 

 and the navy -yard at Gosport, near Norfolk. They re- 

 ceived perhaps invited into their State large bodies 

 of troops, with their warlike appointments, from the 

 so-called seceded States. They formally entered into 

 a treaty of temporary alliance and cooperation with 

 the so-called " Confederate States," and sent members 

 to their Congress at Montgomery; and, finally, they 

 permitted the insurrectionary Government to be trans- 

 ferred to their capital at Richmond. 



The people of Virginia have thus allowed this giant 

 insurrection to make its nest within her borders ; and 

 this Government has no choice left but to deal with it 

 where it finds it. And it has the less regret, as the 

 loyal citizens have in due form claimed its protection. 

 Those loyal citizens this Government is bound to rec- 

 ognize and protect as being Virginia. 



In the border States, so called in fact, the middle 

 States there are those who favor a policy which they 

 call "armed neutrality;" that is, an arming of those 

 States to prevent the Union forces passing one way, 

 or the disunion the other, over their soil. This would 

 be disunion completed. Figuratively speaking, it would 

 be the building of an impassable wall along the line of 

 separation and yet not quite an impassable one; for, 

 under the guise of neutrality, it would tie the hands of 

 Union men, and freely pass supplies from among them 

 to the insurrectionists, which it could not do as an open 

 enemy. At a stroke it would take all the trouble off 

 the hands of secession, except only what proceeds from 

 the external blockade. It would do for the disuuiou- 

 ists that which of all things they most desire feed 

 them well and give them disunion without a struggle 

 of their own. It recognizes no fidelity to the Con- 

 stitution, no obligation to maintain the Union ; and 

 while very many who have favored it are doubtless 

 loyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very injurious in 

 effect. 



Recurring to the action of the Government, it may 

 be stated that at first a call was made for seventy-five 

 thousand militia; and rapidly following this a procla- 

 mation was issued for closing the ports of the insur- 

 rectionary districts by proceedings in the nature of a 

 blockade. So far all was believed to be strictly legal. 

 At this point the insurrectionists announced their pur- 

 pose to enter upon the practice of privateering. 



Other calls were made for volunteers to serve for 

 three years, unless sooner discharged, and also for 

 large additions to the regular army and navy. These 

 measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured 

 upon under what appeared to be a popular demand 

 and a public necessity; trusting then, as now, that 

 Congress would readily ratify them. It is believed 

 that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional 

 competency of Congress. 



Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered 

 a duty to authorize the commanding General in proper 

 cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the priv- 

 ilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, 

 to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary pro- 

 cesses and forms of law, such individuals as he might 

 deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority 

 has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. 

 Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has 

 been done under it are questioned, and the attention of 

 the country has been called to the proposition that one 

 who is sworn to " take care that the laws be faithfully 

 executed " should not himself violate them. Of course 



