Senator Bayard on the War.
In the Senate of the Northern States, on Friday last, a resolution endorsing all the acts of the President being under consideration--Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, took the floor, and said that during the month of March last, when seven States had already withdrawn, he took occasion to express his views of the question which agitated the country at that time, and indicated the course which, in his opinion, ought to be adopted; that the only alternative was to acknowledge the revolution, or be involved in a horrible civil war; and subsequent events had shown that he had been correct in his opinion. He said that no power had been conferred by the Constitution to coerce a State, and the attempt to do so was a violation of contract. He believed that the withdrawal of those States did not subvert the power of the Government, and the acknowledgment of the withdrawal was the only way to avert the civil war. He indulged in the hope of conciliation as the only means to restore the seceded States, and believed that coercion would inevitably drive other States out, as was subsequently shown.
In the States of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee there were large majorities in favor of sustaining the Government until the President had issued his proclamation for troops, when they resolved with great unanimity to withdraw. He said he was as deeply attached to the Union as any man, and if any sacrifice on his part, as to property, could restore the Union, that sacrifice would be cheerfully made; and that his children would have, in his opinion, no prouder recollection than that their father had made such a sacrifice for the end intended to be accomplished. The cry is unconditional submission, and evidenced intention if the States should be conquered, to reduce them to provinces by the exercise of a powerful, unconstitutional — a dominant military power.
In 1776 Massachusetts first embarked in the war, which was treated by the English according to its supposed magnitude. General Gage issued his proclamation to the citizens of Massachusetts, offering a general amnesty to all except John Hancock and Samuel Adams. But a revolution by the people of a large section of the country cannot be easily suppressed, and in the present one, where mat by war, can never restore the Union. I am, said Mr. Bayard, almost, I may say, alone in my opposition to the Administration, but will never be found to cavil about regular legislative proceedings knowing that whatever may result. I am not responsible. I shall await the change that must take place in public sentiment, which will surely take place on sober second thought.
As regards two of the acts of the President, in particular — the right of blockade and that of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus--they involve the rights and liberties of all citizens of this or future ages. If by your acts you acknowledge war, by suspending commerce by a legitimate blockade, then war exists. I do not deny your right to blockade an enemy's ports; but in refusing to acknowledge the seceded States as belligerents, I deny the constitutionality of this act of the President.
In relation to the writ of habeas corpus, I deny that in the States not seceded, or States where the Courts are open, that, there being no pressing emergency, the writ could lawfully be suspended; that military law can ever in this country supercede civil law. If Congress deems it at any time necessary to suspend civil law, why not do it openly and above board!. By not doing so, you commit an action which you will forever regret.--You involve the liberty of future generations, by assigning the President an unlimited power, which he may at all times use at his will, by the terms of the precedent.
No King of England for the last two hundred years has attempted to suspend the liberty bill of Great Britain, yet the President of the United States has not only assumed this power, but chosen to delegate it to a subordinate military officer, in gross violation of the Constitution of the country.
Said Mr. Bayard, when you have passed the resolution now before us, there will no longer be any free institutions in America; this will have ceased to be a lend of liberty.
The United States Attorney-General has, in his letter, defended this act of the President by virtue of his Executive power. If the President has sworn to execute the laws, he is to accept the judicial interpretation of the laws, and not his individual opinion.
What right had the President to make Fort McHenry, or any other fore, a Burtila? Louis the XIV. of France chose to commit to the French dungeons individuals on suspicion, and kept them confined at will — sometimes they were even left to be forgotten. In this instance there may be no dungeons in Fort McHenry, but the invasion of the rights of the citizen is greater, because he has a guarantee of rights by our Constitution. The restraint upon his liberty is as great as that imposed by the French despot; and these men, too, are confined without suspicion or charge being asserted. If you cannot execute your laws without suspension of civil authority, then do you inaugurate unqualified despotism.
If your army is to be maintained, as it certainly must, should you be able to subjugate the South, then another great danger arises. It is easier to organize than to disband an army, and when one person at will demands such a force, he is apt to become a dictator.--I am for peace — for conciliation by general convention or otherwise; but would not be willing to accept any compromise that would degrade the Government of the United States. It the South offer terms that are unjust, reject them.
I know full well the determination of the nats and think it useless to protect against any acts of legislation which might come before this body; but deem it my duty to my concessions, my constituents and the country, that I lift my voice against what I believe to be unjust and unconstitutional.
