Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 09 (of 20)Sumner, Charles
History
Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 09 (of 20)
Sumner, Charles
Slavery -- United States; Speeches, addresses, etc., American
“It has been conceded that independent nations have in general
the right of confiscation, and that Virginia at the time of
passing her law was an independent nation. But it is contended,
that, from the peculiar circumstances of the war, the citizens
of each of the contending nations having been members of the
same government, the general right of confiscation did not
apply, and ought not to be exercised. It is not, however,
necessary to show a parallel case in history, since it is
incumbent on those who wish to impair the sovereignty of
Virginia to establish on principle or precedent the justice
of their exception. _That State, being engaged in a war,
necessarily possessed the powers of war, and confiscation is
one of those powers, weakening the party against whom it is
employed, and strengthening the party that employs it._”[55]
In closing what I have to say of the confiscation bills of the
Revolution, I cannot disguise that they have been thought severe in
some cases beyond the acknowledged exigencies of the times; but,
admitting their severity, they testify none the less to those Rights of
War in which they had their origin.
* * * * *
Such, Sir, are examples of history, so far as I can gather them,
to guide on the present occasion. The embarrassment of Hercules is
constantly repeated. There are paths to avoid, as well as paths to
take; and it is for you to determine, under the lights of the past, how
your course shall be directed.
* * * * *
There are considerations of _policy_, and, I rejoice to believe, of
justice also, which furnish illumination such as cannot be found
in any other instances of history. If we go astray, it must be from
blindness.
In determining what powers to exercise, you will be guided to a certain
extent by the object you seek to accomplish. Do you seek really to
put down the Rebellion, and to tread it out forever, or do you seek
only the passage of a penal statute? Do you seek a new and decisive
weapon in the war our country is compelled to wage, or do you seek
nothing more than to punish a few rebels? Or, if the object you seek is
simply punishment, do you wish it to be sure and effective, or only in
name? Are you in earnest to strike this rebellion with all the force
sanctioned by the Rights of War, or do you refuse to use anything
beyond the peaceful process of Municipal Law? I put these questions
sincerely and kindly. You will answer them by your votes. If you are
not in earnest against the rebellion now arrayed in war, if you are
content _to seem_ without acting, _to seem_ without striking, in short,
_to seem_ rather than _to be_, you will pass a new penal statute, and
nothing more.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account