Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/592

 582 J. A. ]]'oodburn that state would have a right to appeal to the Constitution for protec- tion. But a state which by a free majority of its voters has thrown off its allegiance to the Constitution and holds itself in duress by its own armies, is estopped from claiming any protection under the Con- stitution. To say that such a state is within the pale of the Union so as to claim protection under its Constitution and laws is but the raving of a madman. To escape the consequence of my argument he [Blair] denies that the Confederate States have been acknowledged as a belligerent or have established and maintained independent governments dc facto. Such assurance would deny that there was a sun in the heavens. They have a Congress in which eleven states are represented; they have at least 300,000 soldiers in the field; their pickets are almost within sight of Washington. They have ships of war on the ocean destroying hundreds of our ships, and our government and the governments of Europe acknowledge and treat them as privateers, not as pirates. There is no reasoning against such impudent denials. Stevens denied that he was countenancing secession in recog- nizing the palpable facts of war. The law forbids robbery and murder, but these crimes exist de facto. Does the man who declares their existence give countenance to them? If the fiction of equity courts that whatever ought to be shall be considered as existing — if this is true, then the rebel states are in the Union. If the naked facts, palpable to every eye, attested by many bloody battle-fields, and recorded by every day's hostile legislation both in Washington and Richmond are to prevail, then the rebellious states are no more in the Union in fact, than the loyal states are in the Con- federate States. Nor should they ever be treated so until they repent and are rebaptized into the National Union. Stevens congratulated the country that the House had recently passed a resolution (1864) recognizing the Confederate States as a public enemy. That was the doctrine for which he had been con- tending. The consequences which he had sought to establish would follow as a corollary. " I have lived ", he said, " to see the triumph of principles which, although I had full faith in their ultimate suc- cess, I did not expect to witness. If Providence will spare me a little longer, until this government shall be so reconstructed that the foot of a slave can never again tread upon the soil of the Republic, I shall be content to accept any lot which may await me." ' These extracts will serve to make clear Stevens's attitude toward the chief issues of the Civil War. Those whom he opposed will not be easily reconciled to honor his memory. As Sumner said, " No one gave to language a sharper bite." His words were words of sarcasm, satire, denunciation. They aroused resentment and often left a bitter sting. His antagonists dreaded him, and he has been ^Congressional Globf. vol. 65. pp. 2042-2043, May 2, 1864.