invasion? Could there be a necessity requiring a violation of the Constitution by the North without bringing to the South an urgent necessity to resist, by all honorable means, such violation of that instrument? Can a Constitution be preserved by being violated-by being destroyed? Is not a violated Constitution a very different thing from the Constitution itself?

We shall now give only one other fact, viz: There were two sections, the North and the South in 1860-65. Did Lincoln know this? Both were under the same Constitution. Did Lincoln know this? The South had from the origin of the Republic believed a State had the right to withdraw from the Union. The North not only believed it up to 1850, but had often affirmed it, and had once virtually practiced it. Did Lincoln know all this? If not, how prodigious was his ignorance! But he was only recently from the prairies of Illinois. If he was not prodigiously ignorant with what astonishment ought we to read these words of his inaugural address!

"I hold in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual." Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all governments? Here he reverses with the insane faith of the madness of fanaticism the universal decision of the founders of the Republic. He essays to prove it, and the same mad confidence predominates in his proof. He assumes with the air of absolute certainty the correctness of his premises and his conclusion. Is this the presumption of ignorance? Or shall we conclude they were not the words of ignorance? Certainly we must; otherwise we must decide that this Republic had elevated to the Chief Magistracy a man unworthy to become a doorkeeper in the capital. The meaning of his words are incapable of being misunderstood. What then? We must find a motive for their utterances on this august occasion. May it not be that The New York Herald gave that motive in its criticism at the time, in these words:

"The inaugural is not a crude performance; it abounds in traits of craft and cunning. . . .It would have caused Washington to mourn, and would have inspired Jefferson, Madison or Jackson with contempt." The Pennsylvanian took the same view,

calling it a "tiger's claw concealed under the fur of Sewardism." The Atlas and Argus of Albany characterized it as a document, "inviting civil war." Who can doubt its key-note was craft and deception?

Mr. Lincoln may have been ignorant of the Constitution. We believe he was, but not to the extent this language indicates. But who believes he was ignorant of human nature? Who believes he was not skilled in "craft and cunning?" Had he not sized up the ignorance of the masses? Did he not know how, with quasi-authoritative and quasi-conciliatory words, to strike the note of popular accord, and thus unite the masses of the North? Did ever a man so pervert the Constitution, and so contradict the acknowledged facts of history, and yet so strongly impress the masses of a great section with his sincerity as to the truth of every utterance from his lips? That was a masterful address, but its masterfulness does not consist in its profound truths and its statesmanlike utterances, but in its deeplaid "craft and cunning."

It also failed in true statesmanship because it refused to consider the momentous issues of the hour from the disinterested standpoint of each of the two great sections. Had the South no grievances? If not, did he not know they believed they had? If they sincerely believed they had grievances, should not these have been considered from their standpoint? Do not all know that Lincoln was elected by less than 38 1-2 per cent of the votes cast by the States? Did such a small vote justify him in saying, “I hold myself bound in duty" to discard the long established construction of the Constitution, "and follow within the executive sphere, the principles therein (Chicago Platform) declared?" Did he not know that even though had he been elected by a majority vote that fact would not have authorized him to say, "No State upon its mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolutions and ordinances to that effect are. legally void; and that acts of violence within any State or States. against the authority of the U. S. are insurrectionary, or revolutionary, according to circumstances?" Was it not by "resolutions and ordinances" that these States entered the Union? Is it possible Lincoln was so ignorant as not to know that un

der "universal law" as well as under the "Constitution" that what these States did of their own free will they could undo in the same manner? Whether he did or not, the South knew it, and the North had known it.

Why then did he not meet the South upon the standpoint of her grievances? Was The Atlas and Argus right in saying he was "inviting civil war?"

The deeper the probe goes into this inaugural address the more evident becomes the fact that Lincoln made no effort to pacify the South.

Tarbell says:

"In his original copy of the inaugural address, Mr. Lincoln wrote: 'All the power at my disposal will be used to reclaim the public property and places which have fallen; to hold, occupy, and possess these, and all other property and places belonging to the Government?' At the suggestion of the Hon. O. H. Browning, of Illinois, he dropped the words, 'to reclaim the public property and the places which have fallen." (vol. 1, p. 9).

The spirit of these far-reaching words was anything else than conciliatory; it was the spirit of madness, the spirit of war. Disguise it as you please, all omissions and all changes of phraseology were strokes of policy-mere strokes at deception. When this address shall have been thoroughly analyzed and thoroughly sifted of all its ambiguities and all its contradictions by the future historian, the question will be raised was Lincoln sane or insane? Can his enigmatical life, his confident assumption that all who had preceded him were wrong and he alone was right, be accounted for on the ground of sanity? We may devote a chapter to Lincoln's insanity.

A FALSE WAR-POWER UNDER THE PLEA

OF NECESSITY.

"There is no longer any Constitution."-Thadeus Stevens. In the last chapter we have shown that all war-power rightfully belonging to the Federal Government refers to foreign wars —not to a war with one or more of the States. In fact, a proposition was made in the Philadelphia Convention to give the Federal Government the right to coerce a State, and it was voted down by such an overwhelming majority that it was never again mentioned till Lincoln had invaded the Southern States, and needed it. For Lincoln to need a thing was for Lincoln to have it. He was, however, prudent enough to keep his hand on the public purse, and to know when it was safe to take an illegal step. As proof of this fact witness these words of Morse, page 99:

"It was as an exercise of the President's War-Power they (Abolitionists) demanded the proclamation (Emancipation); and the difficulty in the way of it was that Mr. Lincoln felt and a great majority of the Northern men were positive in the opinion, that such a proclamation at this time would not be an honest and genuine exercise of war-power, that it would be only falsely and colorably so-called."

The phrase, "At this time," is very significant when taken in connection with the opinion of "a great majority of Northern

Mr. Lincoln dared not issue that proclamation till the public opinion of the North would tolerate it. This fact suggests that Northern public opinion was manufactured according to the demands of the wants of the Government. Hence the first thing to do now was to create a different public opinion. And the "craft and cunning" of the Administration had not yet known failure.

Those not familair with the Constitution might infer from the words of Morse, just quoted, that they were discussing some important clause in the Constitution, and were in doubt just under what peculiar conditions the war-power became operative.

But from preamble to finish there was no such clause. They were not discussing the Constitution at all, but one of its substiWhy then this display of scruples of conscience? Why this pretended honesty of purpose? May it not have been to make it appear there was such a clause in the Constitution? Did they not know that the masses, their main dependence, got all their views of the Constitution, not by reading it, but by what others said about it? Therefore they spoke and feigned before they acted. With all their scruples and honesty of purpose were they ever known to specify the Article, Section and Clause in which their war-power to invade a State was found?

As a result of the foregoing it is evident that the concluding paragraph in the Emancipation Proclamation was both an unconstitutional and false invocation; "And upon this act, believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God." It is well known that Judge Chase is the author of this paragraph, and that Lincoln merely assented to it.

It is also well known that for a long time Lincoln was known as "that infidel;" and had he now become the most devout of all the devout, it would be inconsistent with his piety to invoke God's favor on an unconstitutional measure-a measure, which we shall show from Lincoin's own lips in the following pages of this chapter, he thought might be attended with most disastrous results to defenseless women and children in the South.

In all ages of the world and among all civilized people a violated oath has ever been regarded as one of the greatest of all wrongs to the peace and security of society. Unless indeed this act was warranted" by the Constitution" there is no evading the conclusion that Lincoln violated his oath of office. Mr. Lincoln himself declared he violated the Constitution in these words: "I felt that measures otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the Nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground and now avow it." (Abraham LincolnMorse Vol. 2, p. 102).