Confederate Military History

Front matter

Volume | Contents | Links

I | Secession and Civil History of the Confederate States | Scan

II | Maryland and West Virginia | Scan

Volume I

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

hi|HON. J. L. M. CURRY, LL. D. Legal Justification of the South in Secession | |1–58

WILLIAM R. GARRETT. The South as a Factor in the Territorial Expansion of the United States | |59–246

CHAPTER I. Territorial Expansion a Distinctive Feature in the history of the United States—The South a Leading Factor in this Policy | |61

CHAPTER II. The Extension of the Territory of the United States and from the Alleghany Mountains to the Mississippi River and North of the Ohio River | |72

CHAPTER III. Hostilities with France and the Acquisition of Louisiana | |128

CHAPTER IV. The Second War with Great Britain—Spanish Complications—Spain Cedes Florida, and Her Claims to Oregon | |160

CHAPTER V. Annexation of Texas—War with Mexico—Mexican Cessions—Oregon Treaty with Great Britain | |205

hi|CHAPTER VI. Confederate War—Acquisition of Alaska | |239

BRIG-GEN. CLEMENT A. EVANS

The Civil History of the Confederate States | |247–570

CHAPTER I. The Settlement of 1850—Previous Sectional Questions—Origin of the Terms North and South—Extent of "Old South"—Sectional Rivalries—Slaveholding Nearly Universal—Objected to by the South and Insisted on by the Slave Traders—"Profit and Loss"—and not Conscience—Causes which Necessitate the Confederate States | |249

CHAPTER II. First Organized Attack—Garrison the Original and Able Representative—Politicians Embrace Sectionalism—National Rebuke and Fight Against the Greatness of the Union by the Sectionalists—Secession Threatened—Mexican War and its Results—Sudden and Fierce Attacks on Southern Policy in 1849-50—The South's Pacific Sentiment—Union Imperiled by Men of Sectional Views—Clay and Webster, Douglas and Davis Work Together for a National Settlement—The Compromise of 1850 | |263

CHAPTER III. Political Alignment in 1852—Democrat, Whig and Freesoiler—The Settlement of 1850 Ratified—Pierce President—Nullification Measures in Northern States—Renewal of Agitation by Freesoilers—Shadows Showing a Coming Event—Sectional Discord Necessary to the Freesoil Faction—Kansas Troubles and Emigrant Aid Societies—The Shaping of a Party Strictly Northern—Local Successes | |277

Vote Given to National Northern Men—Buchanan elected by Only Nineteen States—The Election Endorsed the Compromise of 1850—Kansas Agitation Renewed by the Sectionalists—Democratic Leaders Divide the Party—Lincoln and Douglas—The Union Imperiled for Party Success—The Brown's Raid a Result of Methodic Madness—Pulpit, Press and Platform Stir Up Passions—Helper's Impending Crisis Reinforces Uncle Tom's Cabin | |291

CHAPTER V. The Agitators of Sectionalism Combine in 1859—The Constitutional Unionists Divide—The South Unable to Control the Question—Resolutions of Mr. Davis 1860—Platforms, Nominations and Canvass for the Presidency—National Union Sentiment Overthrown—Mr. Lincoln Elected—The Fixed Sectional Majority of States Attained | |306

CHAPTER VI. The Effect Produced by the Presidential Contest of 1860—Northern Recoil from the Yawning Bloody Chasm—Commercial Interest—Southern Alarm—Southern Efforts to Avoid Secession—Rally of the Northern Extremists—Buchanan’s Perplexity—Beginning of Federal Movements to Hold the South by Force—Secession Movements in the South | |316

CHAPTER VII. Yet Four Months of Power—Buchanan’s Vacillation—Opinion Against Coercion—Scott Proposes Force—Major Anderson Instructed—Reinforcement of Sumter Considered—United States Congress Takes Up the Crisis—Crittenden, Stephens and Davis in and out of Congress Plead for an Adjustment—Committee of Thirty-three and Commmittee of Thirteen | |325

CHAPTER VIII. Vigorous Work to Strengthen Fort Sumter—Cabinet Officers Resign Buchanan’s Policy Looks War-like—Seward Calls Secession a Humbug—Lincoln Instructs Against Compromise—Election in South Carolina and Secession Ordinance Passed—Commissioners from South Carolina Sent to Washington—Anderson’s Strategy in Moving from Fort Moultrie an Act of War—Lincoln in December Advises Scott to Hold the Forts or Retake Them—Failure of Peace Measures in Congress—The Dark Day | |335

CHAPTER IX. Policy Foreshadowed in December, 1860—War-like Preparations—Star of the West Hired to Reinforce Sumter—Southern Leaders Grow Hopeless of Peace—Northern Leaders Oppose Compromise—Crittenden, Davis, Toombs and Others Urge Conciliation—Virginia to the Rescue—Border States Declare Against Coercion—Secession of Several States—Peace Congress—"Peace Hath No Victories" | |347

CHAPTER X. Delegates of Seceded States Meet in Montgomery—Adoption by Convention of a Provisional Government—Election of Officers—Inauguration of Mr. Davis as President—Measures Adopted—Commissioners Sent to Washington and to Foreign Countries—The Constitution of the Confederate States of America | |358

CHAPTER XI. President Lincoln’s Inauguration—Military Display—Cabinet—Confederate Commissioners at Washing-

PAGE

ton Mr. Seward s Double Dealing with Them The Fort Sumter Reinforcement Question | 372

CHAPTER XII. The Fight for Forts Proceedings Against Fort Sumter The South Deluded The Astute Scheme to Reinforce The Fleet, the Demonstration, the Surrender | 381

CHAPTER XIII. Lincoln s Call for 75,000 Volunteers Responses of Governors Confederate Preparations for Defense Political Effect in the North Confederate Congress Summoned to Meet Letters of Marque Blockade | 393

CHAPTER XIV. Confederate War Policy President Davis Proclamation Sympathy for Maryland Virginia Forces Organized by Lee Federals Cross the Potomac Confederate Government Transferred to Richmond Congress of the Confederate States and the United States Messages Per | 403

CHAPTER XV. Comparison of Resources The Advance to ward Richmond Curious Story of the First Manassas Told in the Records The Discomfiture Turned to Political Advantage Confederate Flags in Full View from Washington Question of Offensive or Defensive War Additional Commissions from the Confederacy to Europe Acts of Confederate Congress The Trent Affair | 417

CHAPTER XVI. Character of the Confederate Government-Message of the President Congressional Debates on War Policy Use of Cotton, Tobacco, etc. Foreign Affairs | 430

CHAPTER XVII. Second Session of Congress Message-Bills Introduced Discussions of Military Events -Lincoln s First Emancipation Proclamation Retaliation Sequestration California and Oregon Counterfeit Money Commissions to Washington to Propose Peace The Loan Impor | 445

CHAPTER XVIII. Emancipation Proclamation The Necessity of It Effect The Southern View Negro Enrollment in Northern Armies Meeting of Confederate Congress Message Debates Resolutions Army Movements The | 461

CHAPTER XIX. Mediation Attempted Foreign Affairs-Peace Spirit Prisoners of War Amnesty on Conditions | 472

CHAPTER XX. Exchanges Prisons and Prisoners Andersonville in the South Elmira, Johnson s Island and Fort Delaware in the North Confederate Government Not Re | 484

CHAPTER XXI. Armies East and West United States Congress Message of President Lincoln The Confederate States Congress Message of President Davis No Sign of Yielding All Male Citizens in the South Enrolled Other Acts of Congress Politics in the United States Thirteenth Amendment Proposed A Peace Movement War Preparations Confederate Viictories | 499

CHAPTER XXII. Political Battle of 1864 in the North Peace

Page

Currents Southern Peace Movements War or Peace Dis cussed in United States Congress The Situation in July-Niagara Conference | 509

CHAPTER XXIII. Re-Survey, Military and Political Radical Convention in May Republican Convention in June Southern View of Northern Politics Failure of the Armistice Peace Propositions Ignored National Democratic Convention in August Southern Desire for McClellan Election The Canvass for Presidency Lincoln Re-elected | 532

CHAPTER XXIV. Confederate Congress, November, 1664—Message—Question of Enrolling Negroes in Southern Service—Measures of the Congress—Negotiations for Peace Proposed by Congress | 538

CHAPTER XXV. Mission of Mr. Blair—Davis and Lincoln Exchange Letters through Blair—Failure of Blair Discussed—The Hampton Roads Conference | 543

CHAPTER XXVI. Military Disparities—Wise on the Part of the South to Refuse Unconditional Surrender—Why the Final Fight was—Made Closely Allied Military and Civil Events—Last Message of President Davis to Congress—Last Acts of Congress Patriotic Act of Virginia and Other States Grant Breaks the Lines at Last Richmond Evacuated—The President and Cabinet Move to North Carolina and Georgia Capture of the President—Assassination of President Lincoln Malicious Prosecution of President Davis—The Dissolution of the Confederate States of America | 560

BIOGRAPHICAL | 571-737

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

|facing page.

Anderson, Richard H. | |697

Beauregard, Pierre G. T. | |633

Benjamin, J. P. | |592

Bragg, Braxton | |656

Breckinridge, J. C. | |592

Buckner, Simon | |697

Cooper, Samuel | |633

Curry, J. L. M. | |1

Davis, Jefferson | |Frontispiece

Early, Jural A. | |697

Evans, Clement A. | |247

Ewell, Richard S. | |681

Forrest, Nathan B. | |688

Garrett, William R. | |59

Gordon, John B. | |688

Hampton, Wade | |697

Hardee, William J. | |665

Hill, Ambrose P | |681

Hill, Daniel H | |681

Holmes, Theophilus H. | |665

Hood, John B. | |656

Hunter, R. M. T. | |592

Jackson, Thomas J. | |665

Johnston, Albert Sidney | |633

Johnston, Joseph E. | |656

Lee, Robert E. | |571, 633

Lee, Stephen D. | |688

Longstreet, James | |665

Mallory, Stephen R. | |592

Memminger, C. G. | |592

Original States and Their Cessions to the United States (Map) | |Between pages 74, 75

Pemberton, John C. | |681

Polk, Leonidas | |665

Randolph, G. W. | |592

Reagan, J. H. | |592

Seddon, James A. | |592

Smith, Edmund Kirby | |656

Stephens, Alexander H. | |589

Stewart, Alexander P. | |697

Taylor, Richard | |681

Territorial Acquisitions of the United States (Map) | |Between Pages 204,5

Toombs, Robert | |592

Trenholm, George A | |592

Walker, Leroy Pope | |592

Watts, Thomas H. | |592

Wheeler, Joseph | |688

Part 1

|J. L. M. CURRY

LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE SOUTH

IN SECESSION.

BY

THE Southern States have shared the fate of all conquered peoples. The conquerors write their history. Power in the ascendant not only makes laws, but controls public opinion. This precedent should make the late Confederates the more anxious to keep before the public the facts of their history, that impartial writers may weight and properly estimate them in making up the verdict of an unbiased posterity. Besides, as they have been the objects of persistent misrepresentation, and authentic records have been perverted to their prejudice, their descendants are liable to receive and hold opinions hostile and derogatory to their fathers.

In this series of volumes, pertaining to the history of the Confederate States, all concerned wish to disclaim in advance any wish or purpose to reverse the arbitrament of war, to repeal the late amendments to the Constitution, to revive African slavery, or secession as a State right or remedy; or to organize any party, or cultivate an opinion, which, directly or indirectly, shall inculcate disloyalty to the Union, or affect the allegiance of citizens to the Federal government. Let it be stated, once for all, that this argument as to the right of the South to be protected in property in slaves and the exclusive right of a State to be the final judge of the powers of the general government and to apply suitable remedies, is based on the Constitution and the rights of the States as they existed in 1860. The amendments made, since that year, in Federal and State constitutions, put an entirely new and different phase on the subjects discussed, for these changes have expurgated slavery and secession from our institutions. Our sole object is to present the Southern side of the controversy as it existed in 1860 and to vindicate it from accusations and aspersions which are based on ignorance and injustice. As the South is habitually condemned and held criminal for seeking to perpetuate a great wrong, it is well to inquire and investigate who was responsible for the state of things which precipitated and prolonged the crisis of 1860-1865. If the act of secession cannot be justified the Southern people will be stigmatized as a brave and rash people deluded by bad men who attempted in an illegal and wicked manner to overthrow the Union. Painfully are we conscious of the disadvantages in any effort to vindicate the motives and principles and conduct of the Southern States and secure a rehearing and readjudication of a suit which seems to have been settled adversely by the tribunal of public opinion. We have a right to ask of our fellow citizens and of the world a patient and fair hearing while we present anew the grounds of our action. We challenge the closest scrutiny of facts and arguments, and if they cannot be disproved and refuted, justice and honesty demand a modification or reversal of the adverse judgment. Few writers seem to comprehend the underlying idea of secession, or the reasons for the establishment of the Southern Confederacy. Swayed by passion or political and sectional animosity, they ignore the primary facts in our origin as a government, the true principles of the Constitution, the flagrant nullifications of the Northern States; and, when they philosophize, conclusions are drawn from false premises and hence injustice is done. Too often, in the endeavor to narrate the deeds of and since the war, prejudiced and vicious statements as to character and motives have been accepted and acted on as verifiable or undeniable facts.

In deciding upon the rightness or wrongness of secession, in passing judgment upon the Confederate States, it is essential to proper conclusions that the condition of affairs in 1860 be understood and that clear and accurate notions be had of the nature and character of the Federal government and of the rights of the States under the constitutional compact. And here, at the threshold, one is confronted by dogmas which are substituted for principles, by preconceived opinions which are claimed to be historical verities, and by sentimentality which closes the avenues to the mind against logic and demonstration. To a student of our political and constitutional history it is strange how stubborn historical facts are quietly set aside and inferences and assumptions are used as postulates for huge governmental theories. These errors are studiously perpetuated, for in prescribed courses of reading in civics and history are books full of grossest misstatements teaching sectional opinions and latitudinous theories, while works which present opposite and sounder views are vigorously excluded. State rights is perhaps the best term, although not precise or definite in its signification, for suggesting the view of the Constitution and of Federal powers, as held by the Southern States. During the administration of General Washington, those who were in favor of protecting the reserved rights of the States against threatened or possible encroachment of the delegated powers assumed the name of the Republican party, but were often called the State Rights party. There is no ultimate nor authoritative appeal for determining the political differences between the North and South except the Constitution, but some preliminary inquiries, answers to which will be suggestive and argumentative, may aid in understanding and interpreting that instrument.

Our Constitution is not a mere temporary expedient It exists in full force until changed by an explicit and authentic act, as prescribed by the instrument, and in its essential features is for all time, for it contains the fundamental principles of all good government, of all free representative institutions. Among these requisites, unalterable by changing conditions of society, are individual liberty, freedom of labor, of human development, rights of conscience, equality of the States, distribution of political powers into independent executive, legislative and judicial departments, and a careful restriction of those powers to public uses only, the healthy action of concurrent majorities, a careful safe-guarding that the power which makes the laws and the power which applies them shall not be in the same hands, and local self-government. The people are ultimately the source of all political power, and the powers delegated are in trust, alterable or terminable only in a legitimate and prescribed manner. Changes cannot be made to conform to a supposed moral sense, or to new environments, neither by the "fierce democracy," nor by the action of a department, nor by a combination of all departments.

To obtain a correct comprehension of the dignity and power of the States it is well to consider them as they emerged from their colonial condition, having waged a tedious and successful war against the mother country, having achieved separate independence and established a

new form of government, a federal union of concurrent majorities, under a written constitution. The American colonies have not had sufficient importance ascribed to them for their agency in achieving civil and religious liberty; and, with their rights and powers as separate governments, as the potential forerunners of our constitutional, representative, federal republic. The institutions founded in this western world, in the essential elements of law and freedom, were far in advance of contemporary transatlantic institutions. The relations they sustained to one another and to the controlling English government, their large measure of local administration, must be clearly comprehended to do them justice for what they wrought out and to understand what character and power they preserved as States in the government of their creation under the Federal constitution. Their precise political condition prior to the Revolution cannot be obscured. The colonies were separate in the regulation of domestic concerns, in home affairs, but sustained a common relation to the British empire. The colonists were fellow subjects, owed allegiance to the same crown, had all the rights, privileges and liabilities of every other British subject. The inhabitants of one colony owed no obedience to the laws, were not under the jurisdiction of any other colony; were under no civil obligation to bear arms or pay taxes, or in any wise to contribute to the support or defense of another, and were wholly distinct and separate from all others in political functions, in political rights, and in political duties. In so far as all the colonists were one people and had common rights, it was the result of their mutual relation to the same sovereign, of common dependence on the same head, and not any result of a relation between them- selves. There was neither alliance nor confederacy be tween the colonies.

When hostilities between Great Britain and the colonies became imminent, because of adverse imperial legislation and the unlimited claim of the right of taxation, and united effort was obvious and imperative, to relieve themselves from the burdens and injustice of the laws and the claims of a distant government, the colonies, each acting for itself, and not conjointly with any other, sent deputies to a general congress, and when the body assembled each colony had a single vote, and on all questions of general concern they asserted and retained were occasional and not permanent bodies, claimed no sovereign authority, had no true governmental powers, and seldom assumed to go beyond deliberation, advice and recommendation. When under stress of war and the danger of or impossibility of delay they acted as a de facto government, their acts were valid, had the force and effect of law only by subsequent confirmation or tacit acquiescence. The common oppressions and dangers were strong incentives to concert of action and to assent and submission to what was done for resistance to a common enemy. There never was any pretense of authority to act on individuals, and in all acts reference was had to the colonies, and never to the people, individually or as a nation.

Virginia made a declaration on the 12th of June, 1776, renouncing her colonial dependence on Great Britain and separating herself forever from that kingdom. On the 29th of June, in the same year, she performed the highest function of independent sovereignty by adopting and ordaining a constitution, prescribing an oath of fealty and allegiance for all who might hold office under her authority, and that remained as the organic law of the Old Dominion until 1829.

The Declaration of Independence, subsequently on the 4th of July, was an act of Congress declaring absolution of the colonies from allegiance to the crown and government of Great Britain and that they were "free and independent States." The Congress which made this Declaration was appointed by the colonies in their separate and distinct capacity. They voted on its adoption in their separate character, each giving one vote by all its own representatives who acted in strict obedience to specific instructions from their respective colonies, and the members signed the Declaration in that way. The members had authority to act in the name of their own colony and not of any other, and were representatives only of the colony which appointed them. Judge Story, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution," reasons upon this instrument as having the effect of making the colonies "one people," merging their existence as separate communities into one nation. The Declaration of Independence is often quoted as an authoritative political document defining political rights and duties, as on a parity with the Constitution, and as binding parties and people and courts and States by its utterances. The platform of the Republican party in 1856 and 1860 affirms the principles of this Declaration to be essential to the preservation of our republican institutions, the Constitution and the rights of the States, when, in truth and in fact, its main and almost its sole object was to declare and justify the separation from, and the independence of, the British crown. In no sense was the paper or the act intended as a bill of rights, or to enunciate the fundamental principles of a republic, or to define the status of the colonies, except in their relation to the mother country. No true American will underrate the significance or the importance of the act of separation from a foreign empire, or hold otherwise than with the highest respect the reasons which our fathers gave in vindication of their momentous and courageous action. Refusing to be subject to the authority of the crown and the parliament was a heroic undertaking dictated by the loftiest patriotism and a genuine love of liberty. Putting into the minds and hearts of our ancestors more far reaching and prescient purposes than they possessed will not magnify their virtues nor enhance their merit. They met the issues presented with the sagacity of statesmen and were not guilty of the folly of propagandism of the French revolutionists, a few years later. The colonies being distinct and separate communities, with sovereignty vested in the British crown, when the tie which bound them to that sovereignty was severed, upon each colony respectively was devolved that sovereignty and each emerged from provincial dependence into an independent and sovereign State. A conclusive proof of the relation of the colonies to one another and to the revolutionary government is to be found in the recommendation in 1776 for the passing of laws for the punishment of treason, and it was declared that the crime should be considered as committed against the colonies individually and not against them all as united together. The joint expression of separate wills in reference to continued union with England expressed no opinion and suggested no action on the subject of a common government, or of forming a closer union. It completed the severance of the rapidly disuniting ties which bound to the government across the seas. Some of the colonies, prior to the 4th of July, had declared their independence and established State constitutions, and now all, by a more public and stronger and more effective affirmation, united in doing what had by some been separately resolved upon. Ceasing to be dependent communities involved no change in relations with one an other beyond what was necessarily incident to separation from the parent country. The supremacy which had previously existed in Great Britain, separately over each colony and not jointly over all, having ceased, each be came a free and independent State, taking to herself what applied to and over herself. The Declaration of Independence is not a form of government, not an enumeration of popular rights, not a compact between States, but was recognized in its fullest demands, when, in 1782, Great Britain acknowledged New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, Georgia and the other colonies to be "free, sovereign and independent States."

Stress is laid on the revolutionary government and on the Declaration of Independence by those who are anxious to establish the theory of a national or consolidated government, reducing the States to mere dependencies upon central power. As has been shown, the contention, derived from those sources, is without legal or historical foundation; but the temporary government, largely for war purposes, was superseded by the Articles of Confederation, which, because of the reluctance of the States to delegate their powers, did not become obligatory until 1781, as their ratification by all the States was a condition precedent to their having any binding force. These articles, in explicit terms, incapable of misinterpretation, declare that "each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. " There can be no mistake here as to the reservation of entire freedom, entire independence, entire sovereignty. These were retained without qualification or limitation, and the use of the word "retains" is the clearest assertion that these unsurrendered prerogatives were possessed under the previous government.

This historical review was not necessary except argumentatively as throwing light on the real facts, and as raising the strong presumption, to be rebutted only by irrefragable proof, that a state once sovereign has not voluntarily surrendered that ultimate supreme power of self-government or self-existence. While in a colonial condition the people of the several States were in no proper political sense a nation, or "one people;" by the declaration and the treaty of peace each State became a complete sovereignty within its own limits ; the revolutionary government was a government of the States as such through Congress as the common agent, and by the Articles of Confederation each state expressly reserved its entire sovereignty and independence. In all this succession of history there was no trend to consolidation and the most conspicuous feature was the jealous retention by the States of their separate sovereignty.

EQUALITY AND SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES.

In forming the Constitution of the United States, from whose ratification our "more perfect union" resulted, did the States surrender their equality and sovereignty and transfer to a central government the powers and rights which in all previous history had been so care fully maintained? This is the crucial question determining the right of the Southern States in 1860 and 1861 to secede from the Union and to establish for their own defense and welfare a new federal union. Obviously this question should be approached and considered and decided, not by prejudice, or passion or sectionalism, or interest, or expediency, or wishes of men; but by the Constitution, in its proper meaning as to rights and powers delegated and rights and powers reserved. Whether secession was wise or unwise, expedient or in expedient, approved or disapproved by a majority of the States, or of the inhabitants, has no relevancy, nothing whatever to do with this discussion. The naked matter is one of right. Was there a supremacy in Congress, or in any other department of the government of the Union, or did the States assert and retain their sovereignty, as against the world?

The States were not created by the government of the Union, but antedated and created that organism. Our systems of government are singularly complex and hence unintelligible to many foreigners. There are two divisions of power—that between the people and their governments, and that between the State governments and the government of the Union. The system is compounded of the separate governments of the several States and the one common government of all the members of the Union, called the government of the United States. Each was formed by written constitutions; those of the several States by the people of each acting separately and in their sovereign character, and that of the United States by the same, acting in the same character, but jointly and in concert instead of separately. Both governments derive their power from the same source and were ordained and established by the same authority. These governments are co-ordinate and there is a subordination of both to the people of the respective states. Limited rights are delegated by the people to their governments, or trustees, and all the residue of the attributes of sovereignty are retained. The division of the powers into such as are delegated specifically to the common and joint government of all the States, to be exercised for the benefit and safety of each and all; and the reservation of all to the States respectively, to be exercised through the separate governments, is what makes ours a system of governments. Taking all the parts together, the people of forty-four independent and sovereign States, confederated by a solemn constitutional compact into one great federal community, with a system of government, in all of which powers are separated into the great primary divisions of the constitution-making and the law-making powers; those of the latter class being divided between the common and joint government of all the States, and the separate and local governments of each State respectively; and finally the powers of both distributed among three separate and independent partments legislative, executive and judicial present, in the whole, a political system as remarkable for its grandeur as it is for its novelty and refinement of organization. (Calhoun's Works, 112, 113, 199.) Under the English form of government, this division with limitations is unknown and parliament is supreme. Madison, in the Federalist, says: "The Federal and State governments are, in fact, but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers and designed for different purposes." Hamilton says: "In the compound republics of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

The Union is not the primary social or political relation of those who formed it. The State governments were already organized and were adequate to all the purposes of their municipal concerns. The Federal government was established only for such purposes as the State governments and the confederation could not sufficiently answer, namely, the common purpose of all the States. The people of the States, not as a unit, not in the aggregate, but separately, hold in themselves all governmental power. One portion they granted to the State governments; another to the government of the Union, and the residue they retained undelegated in themselves. The grants were in trust for their benefit, and created the division of political power between the Federal and the State governments, which division constitutes the gist and sum total of the controversy between the government at Washington and the seceding States. During and soon after a war waged for eight years to resist a claim to legislate for them locally and internally, inferred from parliamentary supremacy, the colonies or states constructed two unions and established in both a division of power bearing a strong similitude to that upon which they were willing to have continued their union with England; namely: yielding to her the regulation of war, peace, and commerce, and retaining for themselves local and internal legislation. The first union "retains" to the States the sovereignty and rights not delegated to the United States; the second reserves" to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. The first confers upon Congress almost all the powers of importance bestowed by the second, except that of regulating commerce, the second only extends the means for executing the same powers by be stowing on Congress a limited power of taxation; but these means were by neither intended to supersede nor defeat those ends retained or reserved by both. By the first, unlimited requisitions to meet "the charges of war and all other expenses for the common defense and general welfare" were to be made by Congress upon the States. By the second, Congress is empowered to lay taxes, under certain restrictions, to "provide for the common defense and general welfare." A sovereign or absolute right to dispose of these requisitions or taxes without any restriction is not given to Congress by either. The general terms used in both are almost literally the same and, therefore, they must have been used in both under the same impression of their import and effect. (Taylor's Construction Construed, 55.)