benefits of the
system which she thus assails and defies. The State being sustained in
rebellion by its whole people, it is vain to say the Government can only
regard the people as individuals, for these are the State, and must be
treated accordingly. But if, laying down her arms, or even after being
conquered, a State returns to her allegiance, to reject her demands
would be to admit that secession had been effectual. It would be a
recognition of the validity, if not of the rightfulness of the movement
which assumed to carry the State out of the Union.

On the other hand, to maintain that the State is still legally in the
Union, even at the moment of violent treason, and is still entitled to
claim her position and rights as such, would be equally, if not more
absurd and injurious to the nation. It is argued, that if there be any
true and loyal citizens in the State, however few, they are entitled to
the protection of the Federal Government, and the recognition of their
State as a member of the Union. This doctrine is unreasonable and
impracticable. Any theory which would carry us to the absurd extreme of
constituting a State of an inconsiderable number of men,--the paltry
minority of a large population--would not be more objectionable to the
good sense of the people, than irreconcilable with the fundamental
principles of our complex government. Such a minority, however small,
would be entitled to the protection and to the highest favor of the
Government; and if they could be built up into a power sufficiently
strong to maintain themselves in the State, then they would fairly be
entitled to claim full recognition. If, by the legitimate exercise of
its war powers, by the just restraint and punishment of treason, the
Federal Government can establish the real political ascendency of the
loyal part of the population, and thus actually restore the State
Government on a fair and substantial basis, even though it be placed in
the hands of a present minority, it would be fully justified in
recognizing this organization as a member of the old Union. But to set
up a mere sham, and pretend to rebuild a State on the basis of
inconsiderable numbers, against even the disloyal sentiments of the
great body of the people, would be unwise and unavailing. Such a
reconstruction would be hollow and deceptive, a danger and a snare,
forever threatening the tranquillity of the country.

The question is one of practical statesmanship; and the