Rensselaer Union, Volume 11, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 June 1879 — The Executive and the Army. [ARTICLE]

The Executive and the Army.

Now, that there is so much interest taken in the' use of the United States soldiery for the purpose of. securing obedience to the laws of the country in times of great emergency, and to the further efforts of the Democrats to mislead the people on the real issues growing out of the present attempted legislation of Congress, it is proper that the attention of the people be called to the consideration of the letter of James Buchanan, the last Democratic President, in reply to a memorial of citizens of Connecticut to him in regard to bis use of troops in the Territory of Kansas. Has any President since the days of Buchanan been so radical in the expression of his views? The letter is lengthy, and we offer only extracts from the same. Referring to the condition of the Territory when he assumed his office, he says: “In fact, I found the Government of Kansas as well established as that of any Territory. Under these circumstances what was my duty? Was it not to sustain this Government? To protect it from the violence of lawless men, who were determined either to rule or thin? To prevent it from being overturned by force?—in the language of the Constitution, to * take care that the laws be faithfully executed?’ It was for this purpose, and this alone, that I ordered a military force to Kansas to act as a posse comitatus in aiding the civil magistrates to carry the laws into execution. The condition of the Territory at the time, which I need not portray, rendered this precaution absolutely necessary. “In this state of affairs, would I not have been justly condemned had I left the Marshal, and other officers of a like character, impotent to execute the process and judgment of courts of justice, established by Congress or by the Territorial legislature, under its express authority, and thus have suffered the Government itself to become an object of contempt in the eyes of the peopleP And yet this is what you designate as forcing ‘the people of Kansas to obey laws not their own, but of tbe United States; and for doing which you have denounced me as having violated my solemn oath. I ask, what else could I have done, or ought I to have done? Would you have desired that I should abandon the Territorial Government, sanctioned as it had been by Congress, to illegal violence, and thus renew the scenes of civil war and bloodshed which*every patriot in the country hid deplored? This would, indeed, have been to violate my oath of office, and to fix a damning blot on the character of my Administration. -t “1 most cheerfully admit that the necessity for sending a military force to Kansas, to aid in the execution of the civil law, reflects no credit upon the character of our country. Bat let the blame fall upon the heads of the' guilty. W T hence did this necessity arise? A portion of the people of Kansas, unwilling to trust to the ballotbox— the. ii.rfiwedy.for4 the redress of all grievances—under- 1

took to create an independent government for themselves. Had this at-L tempt proved sifooeasful, it would, of course, have subverted the existing Kvernment, prescribed and reoqgnizea Congress, and substituted a revolutionary government in its stead. •• • * • Such a principle, if carried into execution, would destroy all lawful authority and produoe universal anarchy. “ * * * In the opinion of the Territorial Legislature of Kansas, the time had arrived for entering the Union, and they accordingly passed a law to elect delegates for the purpose of framing a State Constitution. This law was fair and Just in Its prorisions. It conferred the right of suffrage on * every bona tide inhabitant in the Territory.’ * * * The members of the Convention were legally elected and properly. * * The Convention will soon assemble to perform the solemn duty of framing a Constitution for themselves and their posterity;and, in the state of incipient rebellion which still exists in Kansas, it is my imperative dutv to employ, the troops of the United States, should this become necessary, in defending the Convention against violence while framing the Constitution, and in protecting the bona fide inhabitants qualified to vote, under the provisions of this instrument. * * * Following the wise example of Mr. Madison toward the Hartford Convention, illegal and dangerous combinations, such as that of the Topeka Convention, will not be disturbed unless they shall attempt to perform some act which will bring them into actual collision with the Constitution and the laws. In that event they shall be resisted and put down by the whole powt er of the Government. In performing this duty, I shall have the approbation of my own conscience, and, as I humbly trust, of my God.” This use of tho army, and his defense of the same, by Mr. Buchanan, was approved and indorsed by the Democrats, North and South, at the time. The use of the army then at the polls was to secure an expression of the people of Kansas in favor of the extension of slavery into that Territory. The Democrats never objected to the use of the army at elections if the interests of slavery could be promoted by it If they should get control of the Executive branch of the Government at the next election, and the colored men in any of the Southern States should become stronger than the white rifle clubs, and overpower them, the country will see the army called into requisition very promptly. The Democratic party did not hesitate to use the army at Harper’s Ferry when John Brown made his raid upon slavery. They did not wait for proclamations from Governors, nor for the Judges of the Courts to determine whether it should be used. It may be said that John Brown’s raid was made upon Government property, and was attempt to seize a Government arsenal. This is true, but we observe that the State of Virginia was allowed to try and execute him for art offense against her laws. No case can be found where Democrats ever condemned the hasty use of the army in suppressing negro insurrections or protecting the masters against the slaves. The fact is that, for fifty years, they multiplied forts and arsenals in the Southern States for the expressed purpose of keeping the negroes in subjection. The use of the army for a quarter of a century was about equally divided between the protection of the Western frontier against the Indians and the Southern masters against their slaves. When the army was improperly used for hunting down fugitive slaves and for hunting down and returning Indian prisoners, no Democrat has made complaint. When it is used for the purpose of enforcing the Revenue laws and compelling Southern rebels against the laws to submit to the authority of theaGovernment, we hear a great howl from the Democracy against military rule.— Indianapolis Journal.