MEMORANDUM, OR, BASIS OF AGREEMENT, MADE THIS 18TH DAY OF APRIL, A. D. 1865, near durHAM'S STATION, AND IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, BY AND BETWEEN GEN. JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON, COM- INTRODUCTORY PREFACE. IN presenting to the Public the Second Volume of "A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States," it is proper to say, in the first place, that I have greatly regretted the delay which has attended its publication. This has been occasioned by a long serious bodily affliction, from which I have been in an almost helpless condition for more than twelve months. I have been enabled to complete the Work at last, only through the slow process attending the reliance upon others entirely in the manual execution. The readers of the First Volume will recollect, that the actual conversations, of which the Colloquies are but an elaborate reproduction, took place between the parties in 1867. They therefore do not embrace any public events which have occurred subsequently to that period. Since the Publication of the First Volume, several attacks have been made upon positions therein assumed. The most important of these which has come to my notice, was the one by Mr. Greeley, in the New York Tribune, during the last summer. As it is important in matters of this sort as well as others, that positions in the rear be made perfectly secure before further advances in front, it is also deemed quite proper that that attack shall be here noticed before the reader's attention is invited to the Colloquies which follow. This attack of Mr. Greeley was answered at the time-17th of August, 1869-through the Constitutionalist newspaper of Augusta, Ga. But as many readers of the Tribune, who may be readers of this Work, have doubtless never seen the answer, and might not otherwise ever see it, it is deemed altogether appropriate to give it a place here, that it may go with the Colloquies" and constitute a part of the general discussion. What I then said in reply to him, I now repeat "nunc pro tunc," and in "totidem verbis," viz. : In this article, Mr. Greeley, after alluding to my work upon the "War between the States," and late letters in reply to Judge Nicholas upon the same subject, goes on to say: "Mr. Stephens' theory is, that the Union was a mere league of Sovereign Powers and of course dissoluble at the pleasure of those Powers respectively-of a minority, or, in fact, of any one of them, so far as that one is concerned. And he quotes sundry conspicuous Republicans -among them, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin F. Wade, and Horace Greeley-as having, at some time, favored this view. "Mr. Stephens is utterly mistaken. Leaving others to speak for themselves, we can assure him that Horace Greeley never, at any moment of his life, imagined that a single State, or a dozen of States, could rightfully dissolve the Union. The doctrine of Horace Greeley, which Mr. Stephens has confounded with State Sovereignty, is that of Popular Sovereignty, or the right of a people to recast or modify their political institutions and relations—the right set forth by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.' "This doctrine of Jefferson's we have ever received; and we have held it precisely as it reads. The same is true, we presume, of Messrs. Lincoln, Wade, and other Republicans. Mr. Stephens may say it justifies the so-called Secession of the South; we think differently. We hold that Secession was the work of a violent, subversive, bullying, terrorizing minority, overawing and stifling the voice of a decided majority of the Southern people. The facts which justify this conclusion are embodied in The American Conflict, more especially in vol. i, chap. xxii. According to Mr. Stephens' conception, a majority of the people of Delaware, consisting of less than 100,000 persons, might lawfully dissolve the Union, but the whole population of New York, south of the highlands—at least 1,500,000 in number-could do nothing of the kind. Mr. Stephens's may possibly be the true doctrine, but it certainly never was ours, nor of any Republican so far as we know. The right we affirm is not based on the Federal Constitution, but is before and above any and all Constitutions." I quote him in full on the points to be commented on, that your readers and the public may thoroughly understand them, and be able to judge fairly and justly between us, and come to a correct conclusion as to whether I or he was or is mistaken in the premises. Now what is affirmed by me in the first volume of the "Constitutional View of the Late War between the States," and what Mr. Greeley, with other Republicans, is quoted therein to sustain, is this: "Men of great ability of our own day-men who stand high in the Republican ranks at this time, who had and have no sympathy with the late Southern movement, are fully committed to the rightfulness of that movement. Mr. Lincoln himself was fully committed to it. Besides him, I refer you to but two others of this class, now prominent actors in public affairs. They are Senator Wade, of Ohio, at this time Vice President of the United States, and Mr. Greeley, of the New York Tribune, who is 'a power behind the throne greater than the throne itself."" Then after quoting Senator Wade, with comments on his utterances, I go on to quote from the New York Tribune, of the 9th of November, 1860, an article which is acknowledged by Mr. Greeley to be his, and published in his history of the war, the "American Conflict," page 359, vol. i, as follows "The telegraph informs us that most of the Cotton States are meditating a withdrawal from the Union, because of Lincoln's election. Very well: they have a right to meditate, and meditation is a profitable employment of leisure. We have a chronic, invincible disbelief in Disunion as a remedy for either Northern or Southern grievances. We cannot see any necessary connection between the alleged disease and this ultraheroic remedy; still, we say, if any one sees fit to meditate Disunion, let him do so unmolested. That was a base and hypocritic row that was once raised at Southern dictation, about the ears of John Quincy Adams, because he presented a petition for the dissolution of the Union. The petitioner had a right to make the request; it was the Member's duty to present it. And now, if the Cotton States consider the value of the Union debatable, we maintain their perfect right to discuss it. Nay: we hold with Jefferson, to the unalienable right of Communities to alter or abolish forms of Government that have become oppressive or injurious; and, if the Cotton States shall decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how one party can have a right to do what another party has a right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union, and nullify or defy the laws thereof; to withdraw from the Union is quite another matter. And, whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a Republic, whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets. "But, while we thus uphold the practical liberty, if not the abstract right of Secession, we must insist that the step be taken, if it ever shall be, with the deliberation and gravity befitting so momentous an issue. Let ample time be given for reflection; let the subject be fully canvassed before the people; and let a popular vote be taken in every case, before Secession is decreed. Let the people be told just why they are asked to break up the Confederation; let them have both sides of the question fully presented; let them reflect, deliberate, then vote; and let the act of Secession be the echo of an unmistakable popular fiat. A judgment thus rendered, a demand for Separation so backed, would either be acquiesced in without the effusion of blood, or those who rushed upon carnage to defy and defeat it, would place themselves clearly in the wrong." I give above, this quotation in full, as I did in the Book referred to, that no injustice may be done to him by partial extracts. What I quoted him to sustain, was, as clearly appears, the rightfulness of Secession in itself, and no particular theory of mine touching the principles upon which it was based. Does not the article from his own Paper and Book, above spread before your readers, fully sustain my affirmation for which the quotation was made? Was I "utterly mistaken?" Or did I in any way confound State Sovereignty with Popular Sovereignty? What difference Mr. Greeley sees between State Sovereignty and Popular Sovereignty I know not. By State Sovereignty I understand the Sovereignty of the people composing a State in an organized political Body. But what I affirmed, and quoted him to sustain, rested upon no distinction between these phrases. |