previous next

Yankee Inconsistency.

The friends of Abe Lincoln not only acknowledge that he has violated the Constitution of the United States in six palpable instances, but actually come forward and ask the Congress of the United States to pass a bill of amnesty in his favor. They pretend that these violations of what they call a ‘"sacred instrument,"’ are perpetrated for the purpose of preserving that instrument.--How a whole can be preserved by the destruction of its parts, they do not pretend to say.--But when they talk of preserving the Union by setting aside the Constitution, we may be excused for asking them, what is the Union? Is it not the Constitution? Or, rather, is it not the instrument that establishes the Union, and defines the terms on which it is to be perpetuated? When they themselves set aside the Constitution, do they not by that very act abolish the Union?

These are the men who go into raptures, when they assemble around the festive board on the fourth of July, Nothing is heard then but the praise of our revolutionary sires. Well, what were they but Secessionists of the most unmistakable type? What was Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, but a Secessionist? What was John Adams but a Secessionist? What were all the men who signed that paper — a paper which maintains throughout the right of one people to sever the political bonds that unite them to another, whenever the further continuance of the connection interferes with the undoubted right of the seceding party to pursue its own schemes, of interest or happiness in its own way — the most thorough-paced Secession document every written: what were all of them but Secessionists? What was Washington himself but a Secessionist? These great Union men — these everlasting Fourth of July glorifiers — all pretend infinite pride in our past history, especially our revolutionary history. George III., Lord North, Howe, Clinton, Cornwallis--all the British officials of the time, are stigmatized as tyrants and abettors of tyrants, and our rathers who resisted them are held up as models of patriotism, worthy of reverence and imitation through all coming time. --Well, what did George III and Lord North do, but the very things which Lincoln and his tools are doing now? Did they not proclaim us Rebels, shut up our ports, throw our citizens into jail, refuse to exchange prisoners, and threaten to hang all persons caught in arms against his majesty? Have not Lincoln and his myridoms done the very same thing? Did not Sir Wm. Howe address a letter on official business to ‘"Geo. Washington, Esq.?"’ --Did not Gen. Washington refuse to receive it? Has not the act of the British General been always stigmatized by American writers as a very small affair? Has it not been copied by Lincoln's Secretary of War, in apparent anxiety to imitate his model as closely as possible?

In the war with Napoleon, England declared the whole coast of France and her allies, from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, in a state of blockade, though it would have taken all the ships in the world to have blockaded it. What has Lincoln done but the very same thing which the King in Council then did, and that although he represents a Government which at that time very nearly went to war with England for attempting to enforce the blockade in question? What charming consistency!

The French, the Spanards, and the Dutch, recognized our independence, and England went to war with them for so doing. This was a great folly, and the Government of the United States profited by it, in so far that it always recognized the Government de facte which it found in any country with which it had diplomatic relations. The rule thus adopted was so sensible that it was adopted by Europe generally. Lincoln, however, will make war on Great Britain if that country dare to recognize our independence and send an ambassador here. How very consistent!

The Great Powers of Europe agreed to abolish privateering at the Conference of Paris. America alone refused, or rather the United States Government refused. Now, it says privateering is piracy!

How can Lincoln expect Europe to acquiesce in all these glaring inconsistencies? The United States was the first to recognize Mexico and Greece, and the South American republics. Last year, the King of Naples attempted to blockade his own ports. The United States protested in form, and would sooner have come to blows than permit it. Does Lincoln suppose that the world is ignorant of all these things?

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Places (automatically extracted)

View a map of the most frequently mentioned places in this document.

Sort places alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a place to search for it in this document.
United States (United States) (3)
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) (1)
France (France) (1)
England (United Kingdom) (1)

Download Pleiades ancient places geospacial dataset for this text.

hide People (automatically extracted)
Sort people alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a person to search for him/her in this document.
Abe Lincoln (8)
George Washington (2)
William Howe (2)
Paris (1)
Napoleon (1)
Jefferson (1)
Clinton (1)
John Adams (1)
hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
April, 7 AD (1)
July 4th (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: