state the time at which, as indicated by himself, he will evacuate, and agree that, in the meantime, he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this or its equivalent is refused, reduce the fort as your judgment decides most practicable." Why was Major Anderson requested to name the time he would evacuate the fort, and promise "not to use his guns against the Confederates" in the meantime? Because that warlike fleet with war orders was momentarily expected to enter the Harbor of Charleston, and that renewed and persistent act of war would be a defiant challenge for combat, and the challenge was sure of acceptance. In that event, unless Major Anderson would consent not to use his guns, the forces under Beauregard would be exposed to two fires at once-from both the front and rear. It is well known that Anderson refused this request. Why? Because he knew eleven ships with 250 guns and 2400 soldiers were near at hand to reenforce him with both provisions and men. Thus closed the stirring events late on the 11th day of April. At 3 o'clock on the next morning (12th April) that armed fleet instructed to supply Fort Sumter with men and provisions by force "if necessary," anchored just off the Harbor of Charleston. At 4:30 o'clock on the same fatal morning just one and one-half hours later, the boom of the first gun of that most terrible war was heard. That gun was the culmination of Lincoln's war message and deception and intrigue, and falsehood, and treachery, and threatened force. It was fired in self-defense. If the threatened invasion of the Harbor of Charleston by this fleet with orders to forcibly supply Fort Sumter did not mean war what did it mean? If on a peaceful mission why those heavy guns? Why those armed men? If peace was its object why did it not come in the garb of peace, and in the spirit of peace? Ablest statesmen, both North and South knew war was meant. They were not deceived. Nor is any well informed man deceived today. War was meant and the North can not becloud the fact. Henry Hallam in his "Constitutional History of England (vol. 2, p. 219) says, "The aggressor in a war is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary." The first edition of this work was published in 1827; and it has been acknowledged so masterly that it has, since, gone through many editions. It has also been translated into the French and German languages. With him agrees Dryden when he defines the aggressor as the "one who commences a quarrel;" and also Webster when he styles the aggressor the "one who commits the first act." With all these high authorities is common sense in full accord. Therefore the firing of that first gun at 4:30 o'clock on the morning of the 12th of April, 1861, did not inaugurate that most terrible war. WHO INAUGURATED THE WAR? In the last chapter we showed from Hallam that the aggressors in a war are those who render force necessary, and not those who first use force. In this chapter we shall introduce additional testimony that the authorities at Washington, and not those at Montgomery, were the aggressors. In the Papers of the Southern Historical Society appended to the Southern Magazine for February, 1874, is a letter from Judge Campbell to Col. George Munford. In that letter we are told by Judge Campbell of a visit made by Judge Nelson, on the 15th of March, 1861, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, and to Mr. Bates, the Attorney General; and that his object was to dissuade them from putting into execution any policy of coercion. Here is a part of what Judge Campbell says of that visit to Judge Nelson: "During the term of the Supreme Court he (Judge Nelson) had very carefully examined the laws of the United States to enable him to attain his conclusions, and from time to time he had consulted Chief Justice Taney upon the questions which his examination had suggested. His conclusion was that, without very serious violations of the Constitution and Statutes, coercion could not be successfully effected by the Exeecutive Department. As he was returning from his visit to the State Department we casually met and he informed me of what he had done. He said he had spoken to these officers at large; that he was received with respect, and listened to attentively by all, with approbation by the Attorney General, and with great cordiality by the Secretary of State; that the Secretary had expressed gratification to find so many impediments to the disturbance of peace, and only wished there had been more. He stated the Secretary told him there was a present cause of embarrassment; that the Southern commissioners had demanded recognition, and a refusal would lead to irritation and excitement in the Southern States, and would cause a counter-irritation in the Northern States prejudicial to a peaceful adjustment. Justice Observe that this letter shows four of the very highest legal functionaries, Chief Justice Taney, Justice Nelson, Justice Campbell and Attorney Gen. Bates,-all agreeing that coercion could not be successfully effected by the Executive Department "without very serious violations of the Constitution and Statutes." For more than six and one-half decades this had been the decision; that is, during the entire life of the Republic. It was never called in question till the exigencies of a political party demanded it. Confirmed by the rigid investigations of the last half century, it will be sustained and strengthened by all future investigations. Founded on the bed-rock of the very fabric of the Republic it can never be changed. Lincoln, in his inaugural address, referred to his sacred oath, obligating him to enforce the Constitution and execute the laws, yet he refused to consult the only tribunal whose decision is law itself. From the testimony of Justice Nelson, it seems that he was more concerned about "irritation" in the South and "counter-irritation" in the North, than about the enforcement of the Constitution. Yet his policy of deception was a policy of irritation to both sections. His policy of deception was supplanted by that of coercion, a policy of irritation, beside which that of peace would have been to both sections as the gentlest zephyr to the mightiest storm. As for the North it is well known that more than 62 per cent. of her votes were cast against Lincoln, and a large per cent. of his own party were opposed to coercion. Hence the "counter-irritation" in the North would not have been so bad as depicted. In compliance with the suggestion of Judge Nelson these two distinguished citizens visited the State Department together, and urged Mr. Seward to reply to the Commissioners, and assure them of the desire of the Government, for a friendly adjustment. Mr. Seward objected to an immediate recognition of the Commissioners, on the ground that the North would not sustain it in connection with the withdrawal of the troops from Fort Sumter, which had been determined on. "The evacuation of Sumter," he said, "is as much as the administration can bear." Judge Campbell says: "I concurred in the conclusion that the evacuation of Sumter involved responsibility and stated that there could not be too much caution in the adoption of measures so as not to shock or irritate the public sentiment, and that the evacuation of Sumter was sufficient for the present in that direction. I stated that I would see the Commissioners, and I would write to Mr. Davis to that effect. I asked him what I should say as to Sumter and as to Pickens. He authorized me to say that before that letter could reach him (Davis) he would learn by telegraph that the order for the evacuation of Sumter had been made. He said the condition of Pickens was satisfactory, and there would be no change made there." The order to evacuate Fort Sumter was never given. Fort Pickens was reenforced. Judge Campbell further says that Mr. Crawford was slow to consent not to press the demand for recognition. "It was only after some discussion and expression of some objections that he consented" to do so. The condition of this consent was that Fort Sumter should be evacuated at a very early date. "Mr. Crawford required the pledge of Mr. Seward to be reduced to writing with Judge Campbell's personal assurance of its genuiness and accuracy." This statement was put in writing, approved by Judge Nelson, and then submitted to the Secretary of State, who approved of it. This was a pledge not only to the Commissioners, but also to the highest authority. For the Secretary of State is "the official organ of communication of the views and purposes of his Government." What pledge was that? It was, that Fort Sumter would be evacuated within a few days, and that the status of Fort Pickens would not be disturbed. Remember, a pledge is a very strong way of asserting a fact. It is a surety of fulfilling a promise. Judge Campbell further says: "In the course of this conversation I told Judge Crawford that it was fair to tell him that the opinion at Washington was, the secession movements were shortlived, that his Government would wither under sunshine and that they might have a contrary effect, but that I did not consider the effect. I wanted, above all other things, peace. I was willing to accept whatever peace might bring, |