June 8, 1863---Dying of States' Rights?

JUNE 8, 1863:  

Herschel Vespasian Johnson had been an antebellum Governor of Georgia and Stephen A. Douglas’ Democratic Presidential running mate in 1860. He had opposed secession and was considered a Unionist by some.  Nevertheless, he became a Confederate Senator. By 1863, Johnson’s views on secession had apparently radicalized to the point where States could secede in lieu of even minor compromise.  Was Johnson’s tongue jammed firmly in his cheek? Or did the Confederacy ultimately die of States’ Rights? Food for thought. The New York Times publishes the following:

         

“HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON ON SECESSION.

The Savannah Republican contains an interesting letter from HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON, Senator from Georgia in the rebel Congress, in defence of a bill, which he introduced last Winter, providing an amendment to the Constitution of the Confederate States. The amendment proposed to incorporate the doctrine of secession into the Constitution, so that there could be no mistake about it in the future. It provided that when any State being aggrieved by any act of Congress shall by convention declare the act to be unconstitutional. Congress shall call a convention of the States, and if the act is not approved by two-thirds of the States, it shall be void; but if it is affirmed and no adjustment can be made satisfactory to the complaining State, that State shall, if it choose, be allowed to secede in peace. Surely this seems very reasonable, if the secession doctrine is adopted. It was objected that the amendment was unnecessary. But Mr. JOHNSON says that the right of secession is not in so many words recognized in the Constitution, and he fears that in the future trouble may arise on this question. He fears that Congress may exceed its delegated powers. He thinks that a convention of States furnishes a much better arbiter between a discontented State and the Confederate Government than a Supreme Court. He says that "the Supreme Court of the United States had, at the time of secession, become so imbued with the party spirit of the day, that it was an unsafe umpire between the States and the United States."

Another consideration which, Mr. JOHNSON thinks, commends his amendment, is that it would put an end to all Congressional compromises. He says that the various compromises were a canker upon the United States Government down to the day of disruption, and that they were submitted to by the South, because resistance promised war and bloodshed. In the closing paragraph of his letter he says:

‘Independence gained, I want good government, stable government, enduring government. Without it independence is worth but little, whatever it may cost of blood and treasure.’”