« AnteriorContinuar »
And all officers of the navy of the United States will, at all times, render to the agents appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury all such aid as may be necessary to enable them to take possession of any abandoned, or captured, or seized property aforesaid, and in transporting the same, so far as can be done without manifest injury to the public service.
All expenses of transporting property herein referred to will be reported by the officers who furnish the transportation to the agent of the Treasury Department, and also, through the proper channels, to the Navy Department at Washington, in order that the expenses may be reimbursed from the proceeds of sales of such transported property.
All naval officers in command of squadrons, vessels, or stations will, upon receipt of this order, revoke all existing orders throughout their respective commands conflicting or inconsistent herewith, or which permit, or prohibit, or in any manner interfere with any trade or transportation conducted under the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury not understood as applying to any lawful maritime prize by the naval forces of the United States ; and their attention is particularly directed to said regulations, prescribed March 31, 1863, and they will respectively make such orders as will insure strict observ. ance of this order throughout their respective commands.
Secretary of the Navy.
September 11, 1863. The attention of all officers, sailors and marines of the Navy of the United States, is especially directed to the Revised Regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, approved by the President, dated September 11, 1863, and superseding the Regulation of March 31, 1863; and they will in all respects observe the order of this Department, dated March 31, 1863, with regard to said Revised Regulations, as if the same had been originally promulgated with reference to them.
Secretary of the Navy.
MB, CA AIRMAN:
I have no other purpose to-night than to attempt a review of so much of the Governor's Message as relates to National affairs. The time which this will necessarily consume, study brevity as I may, will leave me no opportunity for a formal reply to the Honorable Senator from the third. I must confine myself strictly to this purpose, or become wearisome beyond endurance.
I listened to the reading of this message, air, with a sincere desire that I might be able to acquiesce in all its statements and conclusions. Divided counsels had already produced their inevitable results apon the country. A loyal people who, eighteen months ago, stood united and therefore invincible, had become discordant, uncertain of purpose and therefore brought to the brink of ruin. I was prepared to follow any leader, Democrat or Republican, who would sink the partizan in the patriot, and unite all loyal men in the great work of putting down this rebellion. I was disposed to avoid all irritating and useless discussion, to sacrifice my own views where principle was not involved, and adopt any plan which promised success. I hoped to find in this message a clear, distinct policy enunciated. I hoped also to find such appeals as would allay discontent, animate drooping courage, and establish public confidence in
the government. A large section is in arms for its destruction. This rebellion will suoceed unless put down by force. Force can only be used through the constituted authorities at Washington. These authorities are powerless without the support of the people.
I think these propositions self-evident. And it follows from them, that unless the people do sustain the Administration in the prosecution of the war, the rebellion will succeed and the country be destroyed. It is manifestly then the duty of every loyal citizen, high and low, to be found beneath the standard of his country, and to leave the conduct of the war to those whom the the constitution has made our leaders. It is not the part of exalted patriotism to stand afar off and rail at the generalship, while the smoke of battle enshrouds the contending hosts, and that standard is being torn and riven by the missiles of the enemy. Nor when we have taken the field is it wise to spend our time in quarreling with our fellow soldiers instead of fighting the common foe. In short, it is madness for us, as a people, to imitate the factions in Jerusalem when the Romans were thundering at its gates, by weakening and destroying each other in every lall of the storm which threatens to overwhelm
It is, therefore, with profound sorrow that I am compelled to say that there is much in this message of an exactly opposite tendency. If I did not think so, I should take no part in this debate. A mere difference of opinion as to the cause of this war and the proper mode of condac ing it, is inevitable and harmless in itself. But when these differences are so discussed as to weaken and perhaps paralyze the Administration, through which al ne the country can be saved and peace r stored, the effect is only mischievous, however patriotic the motive may be.
The business of the hour is the salvation of
And it is not necessary to ignore the errors and faults of our rulers in order to support the government. I concede the propriety and usefulness of free discussion of every act of the Administration. What I condemp is the exercise of this right in a way calculated to distract the people, and lead hem, if possible, to believe that it is more important to crush the Adminis. tration than the rebellion
The part of the message we are considering contains much that we all approve. His faith that the country may yet be saved-his condemnation of disobedience to constituted authorities--the call he makes for economy and intogrity in public affairs—his veneration for the constitution—his declaration that the people of this State will never willingly assent to disunion -are the sentiments of each one of us.
But this is not all he says-indeed it is a very small part of what he says. The greater portion of the message is devoted to the discussion of the causes of the war, and in attacks upon the administration,
During the early period of this struggle, the discussion of the causes of the war was dropped by common consent. Every good citizen felt that such a discussion could do no good, but would inevitably lead jo strife and bitterness. The unanimity which resulted from this course, proved its wisdom, while the discord now pervading the North is, to a great extent, attributable to the persistent efforts of politicians to revive the contest. I regret, therefore, that the Governor has thought it necessary to renew the discussion of the causes of the war. But since he has done it-since he has forced the question upon us—I cannot consent by silence, to seem to acquiesce in statements which I deem incorrect in fact, and evil in tendency. I am not willing that the discussion, if there must be one, shall be all on one side.
His Excellency commences with the proposition that “there are now no causes for discord that have not always existed in our country, and which were not felt by our fathers in forming the Union.”
His subsequent argument shows that he here refers principally, if not entirely, to slavery. It is true, Sir, that this institution then existed and that it now exists. But it is not true that it was then the same as now, in position,---in spirit, in ambition or in power, even relatively. It was then a mere industrial institution. It has since usurped a position entirely different. It has become a great political power overshadowing the land and demanding the control of the Government as the condition of its loyalty. Our fathers had no such monstrous demands to compromise and adjust. This imperium in imperio did not then exist.
The Governor continues—"If the North and the South had understood the power and purposes of each other, our contentions would have been adjusted.”
Had the South understood the power of the loyal States, and their determination to maintain the Union at any cost, it is possible that the rebellion might have been postponed, but that is all. The North could not have prevented the rebellion by any concessions which even Governor Seymour would make. I say by any concessions, for it must be remembered that when compromise and adjustment is spoken of, it always means demands on the part of the South, and concessions on the part of the North.
The offense alleged by the rebels at the time of the outbreak, was the election and inauguration of Mr. Lincoln, an event secured by themselves as certainly as it they had directly voted for him. They determined that he should be elected, and for the very purpose of precipitating the rebellion. And is there a respectable man at the North who would have consented to the
violent deposition of Mr. Linooln, even if it would have prevented the rebellion ?
No Sir, this assertion that the war might bave been averted, so constantly repeated of late, and which is doing its work of evil amongst us, is a mere gratuitous assumption. It has not a particle of proof to rest upon. It utterly ignores the whole rebel programme as stated over and over again by themselves. It refuses to see, what is apparent to the whole world, that this rebellion had been determined for over thirty years—that its plans were forming during that whole period -and that their complaints of Northern aggression was a mere cloak to conceal their actual purpose, and a means employed to drag their own people into the conspiracy.
No Sir, it was ambition, a thirst for power that made these men rebels, not any real or imaginary injustice on the part of the North, they themselves being witnesses.
Says the Governor again : “Affrighted at the ruin they have wrought, the authors of our calamities at the North and South insist that this war was caused by an unavoidable contest about slavery.”
This is a remarkable sentence. Let us analyze it. It asserts
1st. That a portion of the people at the North are 14 authors" of this war.
2d. That they are equally guilty with the actual rebels for the ruin wrought.
3d. That these * authors" North and South slike insist "that this war was caused by an unavoidable con test about slavery."
Sir, I affirm that each and every of these propositions is untrue as matter of fact, and that the first two are monstrous,
First, as to the assertion that a portion of the people at the North are authors of this rebellion. Who are the persons against whom this charge is made? He cannot, does not mean that little squad of fanatics heretofore known as abolitionists? They were so insignificant in numbers and so totally without political influence, that his Excellency would not attribute to them such tremendous powers for evil. No, sir, he does not mean them. He brings this accusation against the republicans of the North, so recently largely in the majority in the loyal States, and who would now be in the majority, as I verily believe, if our armies were at home.
And what is the charge? That they are authors, not the sole authors, to be sure, but still authors, of this rebellion. In other words, tbat they did something, or omitted to do something, which not only occasioned the war, but which justified it also. For unless they made the war necessary and right, they cannot be called authors of it. To say that they are, by reason of anything short of this, is to pervert language, confound the most obvious distinctions, and talk nonsense. It is like saying that the vietims of the St. Bartholomew massacre, because they were hated by the assassins, were the aathors of that massacre. Or it is like that logio which declares that the majority of the Assembly were the authors of the recent disorders there, because they would not permit the minority to control the House.