‘love the Star Spangled Banner while he fought it.’ This sentiment led to the offer and acceptance of honorable terms of surrender, and to the restoration of peace, and now disposes the hearts of the American people to recall the Civil war with emotions of national pride, rather than sectional malice.
This war did, indeed, arouse deep passions, and threatened to implant sectional animosities which time could never heal, but it was fought on questions of principle and public policy; it did not spring from feelings of mutual antipathy. During its progress, resentments were aroused, but the sentiment of American brotherhood was never destroyed, and feelings of fixed hatred were not engendered. The American people belong to a race of strong passions, but not of sullen temper. They belong to the great Anglo-Saxon-Norman race, the race of heroes, of warriors and of statesmen. After the conquering races had commingled their blood in the British Isles, the nursing ground of the heroic English race, their descendants began to spread over the world, and have everywhere been its leaders. The Southern people inherit the strong passions of their ancestors. They know how to love, how to hate and how to forgive. They could be bound permanently to no country by humiliating ties. The only ties which can bind people of English blood are the ties of love and pride. The Southern people love American institutions, and they are educating their children to be patriots.
If any one doubts the patriotism of the Southern people, let him visit their schools, and listen to the lessons which they teach their children, or let him attend the annual reunions held by the soldiers who fought the Confederate battles. Here are some of their expressions, taken from the report of the committee on history, unanimously adopted by the United Confederate Veteran Association at its annual reunion at Richmond, Va., June 30, 1896:
‘Our children and our children's children, trained by us to sentiments of patriotism, will grow up with love and admiration for the institutions of the United States —those munificent institutions to which their fathers have contributed so much.’ Referring to the Confederate soldier: ‘He surrendered as the brave surrender. His surrender meant peace and conciliation.’ * * * ‘He returned to the Union as an equal, he has remained in the Union as a friend. With no humble apologies, no unmanly servility, no petty spite, no sullen treachery, he is a cheerful, frank citizen of the United States, accepting the present, trusting the future, and proud of the past.’ * * * ‘He must love some country, and he has no other country to love.’ * * * ‘He learned to love that flag when he was a boy. He loved it even when he fought it.’ * * * Referring to the Confederate historian the report says: ‘Then let the Confederate historian be like his model, the Confederate soldier. He must be patriotic, for he is representing the cause of patriots. He must be candid, for a partisan work will not live in history, and will fail to convince the world.’ * * ‘He must be bold and fearless, but always liberal. He must be eloquent, for he is dealing with a lofty theme—the most gigantic internal struggle which history records—the grandest contribution which the nineteenth century has made to human greatness—America's proudest title to martial glory. He is painting for future ages the picture of that eventful epoch, whose memories are the joint heritage of all Americans, and which is destined to occupy in American history the pathetic place which the Wars of the Roses now occupy in the annals of England, and in the hearts of Englishmen.’ Such are the sentiments expressed by Confederate soldiers. Has the great centripetal force, the sentiment of American brotherhood, the love for the American system of government, and confidence in American institutions, yet lost its power over the hearts of the American people?
There is one irritating cause, too petty to exert any controlling influence, but which tends to keep alive passions which war and political strife have failed to perpetuate. A class of partisan writers have attempted to ignore the South as a factor in American institutions, and persist in representing the Southern section as inferior or hostile to the other sections, and have even stained the page of history by false pictures of its people, representing them as drones in the national hive, ungrateful participants in the blessings which other sections have conferred. Such writers deserve rebuke at the North as well as at the South. Their partisan coloring fades in the light of facts. The patriot who loves his country is just to all its sections, and finds in its history abundant reason to rejoice that each factor has performed a distinctive part in its upbuilding.
The above digression, it is hoped, will indicate to the reader that a cordial admiration for the joint work of all the sections in building the greatest nation of the world, is in harmony with an analysis of the distinctive work of each.
A calm review of the development of the United States cannot fail to disclose to the candid mind that the South was the leading factor in promoting the territorial expansion, at each period of acquisition, unless the acquisition of Alaska be excepted.
This discussion must be sectional, as it is written in vindication of a particular section; it must also be national, since it deals with that section as one of the factors of the nation; it must be patriotic as well, for it relates the history of patriotic devotion and sacrifice. If any apology were needed, it would be found in the fact that this distinctive work of the South, although no new discovery, has not received due recognition. This is not surprising. The sections whose genius has made them leaders in commerce, manufactures and internal improvements, while contributing to the greatness of the whole country, have in the same work built up their own wealth. The evidences are visible on their soil, and attract the eye of the observer. They may be verified in statistics, population, products and tax lists. The results of the Southern policy of territorial expansion have accrued to the whole country, but have left no mark or memento on Southern soil. The controversies to which the organization of the several territorial acquisitions has given rise, have been mingled with collateral questions, leading to the slavery agitation, and culminating in the Civil war.
These collateral questions have been of such immediate and absorbing interest as to divert attention from the due consideration of the causes and effects of the several acquisitions. Discussion has been directed rather to the contests which arose over the assimilation of the territory acquired, its organization into States, and the relations of the new States to the contending political parties. In the contest for control of the acquired territory, the South was outstripped in the race, and its agency in the acquisition has been ignored. Let us now consider each acquisition in chronological order.
Chapter 2
The consideration of this subject involves a discussion of the title of all claimants to the territory between the Alleghany mountains and the Mississippi river from the Florida line to the Great Lakes, and the final cession to the United States of all this territory, except Kentucky, which was erected into an independent state by consent of Virginia. There were three distinct classes of claimants.
First.—The charter claimants:
Second.—Claimants by virtue of alleged grants or purchases from the Indians.
Third.—Foreign claimants.
There was, also, a class of indirect claimants who urged the United States to set up a claim of original right to the jurisdiction and soil of this entire region.
It was urged that the United States ought to seize this entire country as the property of the general government; that this territory, ‘if secured by the blood and treasure of all the States, ought in reason, justice and policy to be considered a common stock.’ This agrarian argument aroused the indignation of the charter claimants and threatened to prevent the formation of the Union. Congress, however, was not deceived by the fallacy, and acted with wisdom and justice. By no act or declaration, under the Continental Congress, or under the Confederation, or under the Constitution, did the United States ever assert such a claim, or sanction the policy of spoliation. Since the United States never appeared as a claimant, the consideration of such claims might be dismissed, were it not for the fact that the persistence with which they were urged upon Congress by outside parties has made the controversy historic, and led to important results. It will, therefore, be necessary at the proper place to trace the origin, progress and final defeat of an effort which, if it had been successful, would either have prevented the Union or would have engrafted upon its fundamental law a pernicious and fatal doctrine.
The