Correspondence: Christian Sentiments (1861)

Source: The Polynesian. Honolulu: Saturday, June 8, 1861

MR. EDITOR:-You must charitably excuse me if I slightly call in question your article last week under the editorial imprimatur on the subject of "Christian Sentiments." 

Are you an American secessionist or are you not? Your articles is generally construed to imply the former position, though I think I may assume that nothing was farther from your intention. 

The contest gong on in the United States is clearly a contest of "moral principles and civil rights." Under no other view can secession make for itself the slightest shadow of defense. 

It is not a contest, as you appear to suppose, of "political pretensions," unless you speak in the sense of revolutionary right.

The right of revolution under the exigency of extreme opposition is to be admitted. Governments are instituted for the welfare of the people over whom they are established, and when they altogether fail in that purpose, it is competent to set them aside and create other institutions in their stead.

Under the Constitution of the United States, "secession" is an enormity. There are no "political pretensions" involved in it, aside from revolution. Secession is revolution, and more than revolution-it is treason. Let us refer, for a brief manner, to history. One of the prominent States of the Union demanded admission, on the condition of withdrawal, if the working of the system did not suit her interests. The qualified accession was effused by the Fathers to the Republic. Jefferson and Madison, and all the distinguished Statesmen of the day, held that, the Government, once established under the Federal Constitution, was conclusive as to all the parties to which it related. In that period, there was no idea of secession, or of sovereignties within the Union, capable of determining at will the limits of their own laws of allegiance. 

Secession is a modern affair. It was grown out of the theories of Mr. Calhoun, promulgated nearly thirty years ago, and maintained by his followers up to the present time. 

Slavery has had much, in appearance, to do with the matter. But since 1820, what has been the real significance of that question? The Missouri difficulty once settled, there was no trouble to be encountered, had no ambitious aspirants undertaken to remove the old landmarks, universally recognized by the whole country as fixed forever. 

In 1832, the rate of tariff duties was the chief point in controversy.

Now the bugbear of slavery reappears. It is all pretense. There is no sincerity in the profession of politicians in regard to it. On the part of the Cotton States, the purpose of withdrawal from the Union has long existed. The living generation of those States has been nursed and educated in the sentiment of hostility to "Yankee institutions." Treason has had its quiet incubation, and at length has hatched a most pestiferous brood of disorders and crimes. 

Howe unfortunate that two years since there was no Jackson at the head of affairs! He would have put his iron heel, without remorse, upon the neck of the rebellion. The Yancey's, the Beecher's, and all the multifarious brood of political scorpions would have been trodden into the dust. 

Poor, old, Mr. Buchanan! he deserves sympathy, though he wanted all the qualities of a leader in Troublous times. He might have saved his country, but he devoted it to ruin in order to vent a narrow spite on Douglas, who gave him his high position. History will declare him corrupt-but it is to be hoped that the memory of Covode will die out, before the final record of his administration is stereotyped.

There have been mutual wrongs between North and South. This cannot be denied. The personal liberty laws were an outrage and a violation of the Constitution. But what on the other hand is to be said of post office espionage, the courts of Judge Lynch, the denunciation of free speech, and the old attempt at nullification now revived, reeking with more invertebrate treason, under the name of secession!

In God's name, let it be asked, for the sake of peace, what is required to propitiate the demon of secession? Will nothing answer but revolution? Are brothers to wash their hands in fratricidal blood? Are neighbors to cut each other's throats because Mr. Buchanan was unable to crush Douglas and foist Breckenridge into the Presidential chair?

But let the issue come. It is better settled now than hereafter. There should at once be an end of controversy. 

I agree with Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Sickles, that it would be far better to have all the Cotton States sunk into the depths of the ocean than to see the American Union broken into fragments.

Allow me to ask why you have thought fit to bestow a sneer on Mr. Sickles? Do you know him? I am confident that if you had that honor, your tone of censure would be turned to praise. That he has been unfortunate in regard to domestic relations must be conceded, but I am not aware that any man's domestic affairs, beyond the verdict of his country and the laws of his residence. By these tests he stands acquitted, and you have no fair reason to make him a mark of contempt, even for the purpose of a point in favor of American secession, which I am confident you abhor from your inmost soul.

In conclusion, I will remark that it was unseemly that the Hawaiian Government organ should, even by indirection, stand before the world as an endorser of treason against American institutions. We are on terms of political relationship with the United States. There is resident here a Commissioner of that country, supposed to be loyal and true to the laws and the lawful authorities at Washington. He believes in the theory of the Constitution; he knows that the President holds, in a proper manner, the executive power of the country in his hands; he respects the ability of Mr. Lincoln, and will resent, though adverse in political sentiment, the application of any disrespectful epithet to his character. 

There are also resident Consuls, holding proper commissions from the President. Their feelings, as well as those of the Commissioner, should be respected. Hence I have inferred that on grounds of comity, as well as on grounds of constitutional right, you ought not to maker yourself a partisan of secession.

So far as your points bear upon the Advertiser, I have not a word to say. Should you fight it out after the manner of the Killkenny cats, I shall look on, inclined in your favor, and if the head of the Polynesian is safe, when the tail of the Advertiser disappears, it will afford me pleasure to greet your escape from an unpleasant conflict.

The conclusion of the whole matter, which I wish to convey, is this:

The secession of an American State from the Federal Union is treason-joust as much treason as would be the revolt of Kauai from his Hawaiian Majesty's allegiance. 
June 4, 1861.       J.B. STEILACOMB.

We insert the above communication only because is embodies a misconception of what we said last week on the subject of the American difficulty and the civil war there existing, and because, personally and officially, it accuses us of opinions and motives which we neither entertained for expressed.

We were simple enough to think that the moral of our remarks upon the Christian Advocate would have been evident to every Christian reader at a glance, and that the desire of a strictly and professedly Christian journal to "sacrifice a million of lives" to maintain a political dogma, be it ever so good, ever so cherished, working ever so well, was strangely inconsistent with that evangel which teaches "peace on earth, good will to man, and glory to God in the highest." Our allusion to Mr. Sickles was not intended as personal or offensive, but as distinctive and representative of a class of politicians who, without reference to the religious aspect of the question, in rigorously carrying out their political creed to its logical consequences arrive to the same wholesale conclusion as the Christian Advocate, whose conscience was bound to preach wisdom, moderation, forbearance, instead of fanning the flames of bitterness and contention. 

We might have used the name of any prominent politician of the same opinions, as an illustration, had it occurred to us; and if our correspondent insists that our words must be construed as personal and unkind, we will willingly retract them, and insert his name as a representative man instead of Mr. S. 

We have the highest respect for our correspondents erudition in the political and domestic relations which obtain in the United States. Secession may be treason, and rightly so construed, according to the manner and circumstances under which it is effected. It is for them to judge, and not us. But that to wish the sacrifice of a million lives, or the entire South sunk in the Ocean, or religion-at least Christian religion-we are far from being convinced of; and further our remarks were not intended to go, nor could they by any fair construction be made to go.

Our correspondent says, "that it is unseemly that the Hawaiian Government Organ should even by indirection stand before the world as an endorser of treason against American institutions." We might pass over the above gratuitous charge with the silence which it deserves, knowing well that minds with strong proclivities, and deeply excited, always see the shadow of the hopes or fears that agitate them for the moment in whatever may be said or done around them. We are not conscious of ever having directly or indirectly advocated treason against the United States or their institutions. On the contrary, we admired them from afar, in our younger days, as the hope of the oppressed and the scourge of their tyrants; we lived under them in mature age, and the reminiscence is as vivid and as cherished as any other that memory brings back; we have batted for many years for introduction in this country of such of them as were rationally consistent with the condition and intelligence of this people, and we have never for a moment lost sight of how much the civilization and progress of this country owes to American good will, enterprise, industry and capital. And when in the last week's issue of the Polynesian we referred to the civil war in the United States, we did so in grief and sorrow, yet in a language that was alike calm, dignified, kind and becoming in a friend of humanity and an officer of a friendly government.

We have reason to think, and are vain enough to believe, that "unseemly" actions and indiscreet and unkind words are not coupled with our name by those who know us well, either personally or through our journal, and we candidly confess that we fail to see, even were the 416th Section of the Civil Code not enacted, wherein we have compromised the relations or character of the Hawaiian Government in any of our writings since we have had the honor of being the Director of the Polynesian.