[422]
believed, therefore, in spite of so many failures, in the practicability of a republic.
“If this Government has gone down,” asks the editor, “what shall be its substitute?”
And he answers by saying that, as to the present generation, “it seems their only resort must be to a constitutional monarchy.”
Hence you see the
Senator and myself begin to agree in the proposition that the nature and character of the
Government are to be changed.
William Howard Russell, the celebrated correspondent of
The London Times, spent some time in
South Carolina, and he writes:
From all quarters have come to my ears the echoes of the same voice; it may be feigned, but there is no discord in the note, and it sounds in wonderful strength and monotony all over the country.
Shades of George III., of North, of Johnson, of all who contended against the great rebellion which tore these colonies from England, can you hear the chorus which rings through the State of Marion, Sumter, and Pinckney, and not clap your ghostly hands in triumph?
That voice says, ‘If we could only get one of the royal race of England to rule over us, we should be content!’
Let there be no misconception on this point.
That sentiment, varied in a hundred ways, has been repeated to me over and over again.
There is a general admission that the means to such an end are wanting, and that the desire cannot be gratified.
But the admiration for monarchical institutions on the English model, for privileged classes, and for a landed aristocracy and gentry, is undisguised and apparently genuine.
With the pride of having achieved their independence, is mingled in the South Carolinian's heart a strange regret at the result and consequences, and many are they who ‘would go back tomorrow if we could.’
An intense affection for the British connection, a love of British habits and customs, a respect for British sentiment, law, authority, order, civilization, and literature preeminently distinguish the inhabitants of this State,
&c.
This idea was not confined to localities.
It was extensively prevalent, though policy prompted its occasional repudiation.
At a meeting of the people of
Bibb County, Georgia, the subject was discussed, and a constitutional monarchy was not recommended for the
Southern States, “as recommended by some of the advocates of immediate disunion.”
Here is evidence that the public mind had been sought to be influenced in that direction; but the people were not prepared for it.
Mr. Toombs, of
Georgia, during the delivery of a speech by
Mr. A. H. Stephens, before the Legislature of that State, did not hesitate to prefer the form of the
British Government to our own.
Not long since — some time in the month of May--I read in
The Richmond Whig, published at the place where their Government is now operating, the centre from which they are directing their armies, which are making war upon this Government, an article in which it is stated that, rather than submit to the Administration now in power in the
City of Washington, they would prefer passing under the constitutional reign of the amiable
Queen of
Great Britain.
I agree, therefore, with the
Senator from
Kentucky, that there is a desire to change this Government.
We see it emanating from every point in the
South.
Mr. Toombs was not willing to wait for the movement of the people.
Mr. Stephens, in his speech to the Legislature of Georgia, preferred the calling of a Convention; but
Mr. Toombs was unwilling to wait.
Mr. Stephens was unwilling to see any violent action in advance of the action of the people; but
Mr. Toombs replied: “I will not wait; I will take the sword in my own hand, disregarding the will of the people, even in the shape of a Convention,” and history will record that he kept his word.
He and others had become tired and dissatisfied with a government of the people; they have lost confidence in iran's capacity for self-government; and furthermore, they would be willing to form an alliance with
Great Britain; or, if
Great Britain were slow in forming the alliance, with
France; and they know they can succeed there, on account of the hate and malignity which exist between the two nations.
They would be willing to pass under the reign of the amiable and constitutional
Queen of
Great Britain!
Sir, I love woman, and woman's reign in the right place; but when we talk about the amiable and accomplished
Queen of
Great Britain, I must say that all our women are ladies, all are queens, all are equal to Queen Victoria, and many of them greatly her superiors.
They desire no such thing; nor do we. Hence we see whither this movement is tending.
It is a change of government; and in that the
Senator and myself most fully concur.
The
Senator from
Kentucky was wonderfully alarmed at the idea of a “dictator,” and replied with as much point as possible to the
Senator from
Oregon, who made the suggestion.
But, sir, what do we find in
The Richmond Examiner, published at the seat of Government of the so-called
Confederate States?
“In the late debates of the
Congress of this Confederacy,
Mr. Wright, of
Georgia, showed a true appreciation of the crisis when he advocated the grant of power to the
President, that would enable him to make immediate defence of
Richmond, and to bring the whole force of the
Confederacy to bear on the affairs of
Virginia.
It is here that the fate of the
Confederacy is to be decided; and the time is too short to permit red tape to interfere with public safety.
No power in executive hands can be too great, no discretion too absolute, at such moments as these.
We need a dictator.
Let lawyers talk when the world has time to hear them.
Now let the sword do its work.
Usurpations of power by the chief, for the preservation of the people from robbers and murderers, will be ”
