The Continental Monthly, Vol. IV. October, 1863, No. IV. | Page 2

perhaps give him opportunity for consummating his designs and
delivering the republic into the hands of its enemies. If a portion of the
press circulate information calculated to aid the foe in the defeat of the
national armies, to endeavor to prevent this evil by the slow routine of
civil law, might result in the destruction of the state. The fact that we
raise armies to secure obedience commonly enforced by the ordinary
civil officers is a virtual and actual acknowledgment that a new order of
things has arisen for which the usual methods are insufficient, civil
authority inadequate, and to contend with which powers must be
exercised not before in vogue. Codes of procedure arranged for an
established and harmoniously working Government cannot answer all
the requirements of that Government when it is repudiated by a large
body of its subjects, and the existence of the nation itself is in peril.
It is evident, therefore, that at times the accustomed methods of Civil
government must, in deference to national safety, be laid aside, to some
extent, and the more vigorous adaptations of Military government

substituted in their stead. But it does not follow from this that arbitrary
power is necessarily employed, or that such methods are not strictly
legal. There is a despotic Civil government and a despotic Military
government, a free Civil government and a free Military government.
The Civil government of Russia is despotic; so would its Military
government be if internal strife should demand that military authority
supersede the civil; the Civil government of the United States is free, so
must its Military government be in order to be sustained.
But what is a free Military government? There is precisely the same
difference between a free and a despotic military polity as between a
free and a despotic civil polity. It is the essential nature of despotic rule
that it recognizes the fountain head of all power to be the ruler, and the
people are held as the mere creatures of his pleasure. It is the essence of
free government that it regards the people as the source of all power,
and the rulers as their agents, possessing only such authority as is
committed by the former into the hands of the latter. It matters not,
therefore, whether a ruler be exercising the civil power in times of
peaceful national life, or whether, in times of rebellion, he wields the
military authority essential to security, he is alike, at either time, a
despot or a republican, accordingly as he exercises his power without
regard to the will of the people, or as he exercises such power only as
the national voice delegates to him.
Wendell Phillips said in his oration before the Smithsonian Institute:
'Abraham Lincoln sits to-day the greatest despot this side of China.'
The mistake of Mr. Phillips was this: He confounded the method of
exercising power with the nature of the power exercised. It is the latter
which decides the question of despotism or of freedom. The methods of
the republican governor and of the despot may be, in times of war must
be, for the most part, identical. But the one is, nevertheless, as truly a
republican as the other is a despot. Freedom of speech, freedom of the
press, the right of travel, the writ of _habeas corpus_--these insignia of
liberty in a people are dispensed with in despotic Governments,
because the ruler chooses to deprive the people of their benefits, and for
that reason only; they were suspended in our Government because the
national safety seemed to demand it, and because the President, as the

accredited executive of the wishes of the people, fulfilled their clearly
indicated will. In the former case it is lordly authority overriding the
necks of the people for personal pride or power; in the latter, it is the
ripe fruit of republican civilization, which, in times of danger, can with
safety and security overleap, for the moment, the mere forms of law, in
order to secure its beneficial results. They seem to resemble each other;
but are as wide apart as irreligion and that highest religious life which,
transcending all external observances, seems to the mere religious
formalist to be identical with it.
But how is the Executive to ascertain the behest of the people? In
accordance with the modes which they, as a part of their behest,
indicate. But as there are two methods of fulfilling the wishes of the
people, one adapted to the ordinary routine of peaceful times, and
another to the more summary necessities of war, so there are two
methods, calculated for these diverse national states, by which the
Government must discover the will of the people. The slow, deliberate
action of the ballot box and of the legislative body is amply